Luis Elizondo's Claims of Coming UFO Disclosure

[Eburacum]

Excellent!
A microbiologist should be aware that it is unlikely that any biological alien microbiota has ever been in contact with the biosphere of Earth, since every organism yet identified on this planet (macroscopic or microscopic) evolved here on this world from a common ancestor about four billion years ago.

There is no room for any significant contact between Earth organisms and extraterrestrial organisms in the field of molecular biology.

 

[AllTheQuestionsToday]

Most, if not all, NDAs (all the ones I have signed) include a section outlining consequences for non compliant.disclosure. You cannot circumvent the NDA without circumventing the consequences.

What if any of the NDA content or factors end up being in violation of state or Federal law?

 

[Landru]

What if any of the NDA content or factors end up being in violation of state or Federal law?

The NDAs I was referring to were with Federal agencies directly or for contractors for federal agencies so none.

 

[Arthur 33]

Excellent!
A microbiologist should be aware that it is unlikely that any biological alien microbiota has ever been in contact with the biosphere of Earth, since every organism yet identified on this planet (macroscopic or microscopic) evolved here on this world from a common ancestor about four billion years ago.

Well I don't consider myself a microbiologist. That is usually a tittle of a PhD level scientist published in microbiology.

But your question is insightful. You are referencing the modern "revolution" of DNA based phylogenetics. This was indeed the focus of a lot of my coursework, but I have to say I was always skeptical of the basic premise. I know much smarter people than me have verified this work, but I have never had it explained to me in a way I can truly understand. I actually often played devils advocate to return modern phylogeny to its pre DNA era based mostly off morphology and microscopy.

Phylogenetics is so complex, and relies off computer modeling. However morphology and microscopy I can understand and easily verify. There is a non zero chance IMHO that the whole field of phylogenetics is garbage. It would not be the first time in science.

 

[Mendel]

I know much smarter people than me have verified this work, but I have never had it explained to me in a way I can truly understand.

Phylogenetics is so complex, and relies off computer modeling. However morphology and microscopy I can understand and easily verify. There is a non zero chance IMHO that the whole field of phylogenetics is garbage.

That's a good example of...

Article:

The argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone decides that something did not happen or does not exist because they cannot personally understand the workings.

Source: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity

 

[FatPhil]

Phylogenetics is so complex, and relies off computer modeling. However morphology and microscopy I can understand and easily verify. There is a non zero chance IMHO that the whole field of phylogenetics is garbage. It would not be the first time in science.

That line of reasoning is also a classic Association Fallacy:

Phlogistons were science
Phylogenetics is science
Phlogistons were garbage
*Therefore phylogenetics is garbage

Of course, stepping back for a broader view, it's just a corollary of the Hasty Generalisation Fallacy:
Phlogistons were science
Phlogistons were garbage
*Therefore all science is garbage

With the added extra lines for a specific case:
Phylogenetics is science
*Therefore phylogenetics is garbage

 

[Arthur 33]

That line of reasoning is also a classic Association Fallacy:

Phlogistons were science
Phylogenetics is science
Phlogistons were garbage
*Therefore phylogenetics is garbage

Of course, stepping back for a broader view, it's just a corollary of the Hasty Generalisation Fallacy:
Phlogistons were science
Phlogistons were garbage
*Therefore all science is garbage

With the added extra lines for a specific case:
Phylogenetics is science
*Therefore phylogenetics is garbage

I am inherently skeptical of any branch of science that makes big claims (we can track evolution of all species back billions of years by using complex computer models). But when I ask my professors to explain this to me in a way I can understand they basically wave their hands and make a appeal to authority argument.

None of my other science education was like that. Yes other concepts were highly complex, but I was always able to eventually understand them.

I am not saying modern DNA based phylogenetics is wrong, I am just saying it could be wrong.

 

[NorCal Dave]

We could do like the House UAP Hearings thread, and just start a new one now : "Elizondo to Reveal an 'It Will Be Worth It Reveal' in mid '24", then we can just endlessly speculate about what he might reveal, if anything.

I'm not calling myself a prophet or anything, BUT we are 4 pages and over 100 comments in and Elizondo hasn't said anything yet. Meanwhile we're on phylogenetics.

 

[Arthur 33]

I think Lue Elzondo's "big prediction" is just about his planned book tour, and documentary drop.

 

[Mendel]

Posted today to Lue Elizondo's Facebook page. It smells like more conspiracy theory to me.
View attachment 63923

From a 2018 Elizondo talk:

Article:

Elizondo began his talk with the prediction, "I think the same time next year we're going to have a fundamentally different conversation," apparently implying that everybody will then be convinced that aliens are here. Let's re-visit that prediction on July 29, 2019 to see how well it holds up. My predicton is, at that time the conversation will still be same old, same old.

Source: https://badufos.blogspot.com/2018/09/elizondo-and-five-observables.html

That was a very similar claim, and unless I misremember, it did turn out an empty promise.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

To clarify, let's straighten out who said what:

-Elizondo: "I think the same time next year we're going to have a fundamentally different conversation..."

-Robert Sheaffer: My prediction is, at that time [2019] the conversation will still be same old, same old.

Both predictions were made in 2018.

Sheaffer's prediction is line with my observation made in 2017:

What I'm trying to say here is that UFO's have been around a LONG time. People have poured their heart and soul into flying saucers, UFOs and Alien encounters of the third kind, grown old and died. Nothing ever happens.

See:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/bl...s-ufo-disclosure-enterprise.9155/#post-213742

Interest/belief in UFO Folklore depends on an ignorance of the history of the field, or the inability to take lessons from the history.

Veteran believers either wear out and drop out, or keep plugging wearily along despite the continued disappoint until the Grim Reaper comes to call.

New believers don't know the history or twist the history. The for profit con artists keep making dough as long as there's an audience.

It all depends on a churning process.


I think this latest wave of UFO belief is dependent on the adage - So old it's new again.

The last great UFO Flap was in 1973. After that Nuts and Bolts UFOs went into a slow decline, replaced for awhile by a Contactee mania in the late 70's through the early 90's. When that faded UFOs went into a dormancy phase that belonged mostly to the Invisible College interdimensional hypothesis crowd, and a few scattered eccentrics.

The current wave - not quite a full fledged Flap of the 1966 or 1973 type - just seems to be dependent on new believers and "experts" who know nothing about the field.

By the 1970's even hard core UFOlogists knew the basics:
-Eyewitnesses are fallible, and exactly why they are fallible.
-Repeat witnesses -people who continue to report UFO encounters- should be discounted.
-The limitations and quirks of cameras, radar, Geiger counters, etc.
-How to recognize a hoax and hoaxers.

I think this is exactly why Nuts and Bolts UFOlogy declined. It became too hard to sustain the belief. Some weary veterans floated the idea that flying saucers were real but they're not coming around anymore. The hardcore retreated into the interdimensional hypothesis thing/Contactee thing. Not quite the same thing. The public at large lost interest.

All that history and knowledge has been lost. What we have now:
-An abundance of naïve hard core believers.
-A public at large that is intrigued.
-An abundance of naïve "experts" who don't know how to investigate. Don't know how to evaluate. Don't know the basics of how eyewitnesses can make cause and effect errors or misperceive. Don't discount repeat witnesses. Don't evaluate mechanisms such as cameras or radar properly. Don't recognize hoaxers, eccentrics or con artists for what they are.

-Something we've always had. A main stream media that is credulous and ignorant.

It seems to me that what we're trying to do here at MB is to bring back all the old knowledge about proper investigation. We hope the public at large and the "experts" will listen.

We're also recreating the outraged hostility from UFO believers. That last is depressingly familiar.

 

[Ann K]

All that has been lost. What we have now:
-An abundance of naïve believers.
-An abundance of naïve "experts" who don't know how to investigate. Don't know how to evaluate. Don't know the basics of how eyewitnesses can make cause and effect errors or misperceive. Don't discount repeat witnesses. Don't evaluate mechanisms such as cameras or radar properly. Don't recognize hoaxers, eccentrics or con artists as what they are.

- An abundance of people who have a YouTube channel as a means of recycling long-debunked cases, which can provide an easy-access portal to reach the naïve believers.

 

[FatPhil]

- An abundance of people who have a YouTube channel as a means of recycling long-debunked cases, which can provide an easy-access portal to reach the naïve believers.

Yeah, I was going to follow up with a "agree, but it's worse than that" post! The ``abundance of naïve "experts"'' contains a core with enough influence in places that actually matter such that they can not just guide governmental policy/expenditure, but also persuade the voting public to consider these matters ones important enough to be an input behind their eventual vote.

(And yes, I know the performers in many popular beat combos, and other stars of televisual entertainment, also have such influence, I'm not saying it's a unique situation. As with all things you have to look at the messages being propagated do decide how worrying such propagation is.)

 

[Ann K]

And yes, I know the performers in many popular beat combos, and other stars of televisual entertainment, also have such influence, I'm not saying it's a unique situation. As with all things you have to look at the messages being propagated do decide how worrying such propagation is.)

For starters, the audience generally recognizes when they're watching actors or singers play a role. The same is not true for the pseudoscience peddlers. That goes for the purveyors of "ancient alien"-type fake history and unqualified guys in white lab coats selling medical advice and ineffective products, in addition to UFO fantasists.

 

[Duke]

For starters, the audience generally recognizes when they're watching actors or singers play a role. The same is not true for the pseudoscience peddlers. That goes for the purveyors of "ancient alien"-type fake history and unqualified guys in white lab coats selling medical advice and ineffective products, in addition to UFO fantasists.

Your post reminded me of this comical, yet also pathetic story about TV audiences.

"Gilligan's Island" creator Sherwood Schwartz told the story to the Television Academy Foundation. It began with a phone call after the show had been on the air for a little more than two months.

"I get a call from the Coast Guard, a lieutenant in the Coast Guard, and he said can I come down to see you," Schwartz said. "… He came in and said 'I didn't want to tell you over the phone because I didn't think you'd believe me, but here read these,' and he tosses about a dozen or 18, I don't know, a batch of telegrams on my desk."

Each telegram begged the U.S. Coast Guard to help get Gilligan — and the Skipper too — get off of that island. They believed the show was real.

https://www.outsider.com/entertainm...showed-power-tv-sending-unique-type-fan-mail/

Later in the same article, Schwartz, said the following:

There's a belief factor that's incredible in television it's not true in any other medium. Scary, really scary."

Schwartz said producers must be aware of that power and use it responsibly.

"That's the point of making TV," he said. "I think we have to be careful because there are people out there who believe what you're telling them."

Despite the posted article being written in Apr 2021, I first heard this story in the late 1970s in a "History of Television and Radio" course in college. (Easy course plus girls made this a popular elective for engineers.) While Schwartz's comment about TV having a greater "belief factor" than any other medium was true at the time, click bait internet stories and YouTube videos have at least equalled, if not far exceeded, that believability factor. I dare say many of those producing modern articles/blogs/videos are counting on it.

 

[Ann K]

While Schwartz's comment about TV having a greater "belief factor" than any other medium was true at the time, click bait internet stories and YouTube videos have at least equalled, if not far exceeded, that believability factor. I dare say many of those producing modern articles/blogs/videos are counting on it.

"Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people."
(attributed to H.L. Mencken)

 

[JMartJr]

For starters, the audience generally recognizes when they're watching actors or singers play a role.

True, but then actors and singers and athletes and such also have a life when not working, and are often treated as authorities by some folks simply because they are famous. Recall Meryl Streep's testimony to congress concerning Alar being sprayed on apples. I don't know how safe or unsafe Alar spraying was, I have no training in chemistry nor in how carcinogens work - -but Ms. Streep and I have that in common, and nobody asked ME to testify to Congress. I am not famous.

Heck, Elmo the muppet testified before a congressional committee about music education funding. Elmo's credentials as an expert in this field seem lacking, since he does not exist. (Joke about "literal sock puppet" redacted because I could not make it sufficiently amusing.)

(Image source: https://www.loc.gov/item/2019646086/)

Celebrities are famous, so they must be important, so their opinions must be important, seems to be how the thinking goes. And we have celebrity flat Earthers, celebrity anti-inoculationists, celebrity UFO believers (one former Blink-182 member springs to mind!) and so on. Their opinions contribute to the public opinion on such topics out of all proportion to their actul expertise or knowledge.

 

[Mendel]

Heck, Elmo the muppet testified before a congressional committee about music education funding. Elmo's credentials as an expert in this field seem lacking, since he does not exist.

Elmo represented Children's Television Workshop, which has been engaged in music education for decades. Elmo symbolized this effort, as the character led the "Make Music with Elmo and Friends!" segment of the show.

I don't know how safe or unsafe Alar spraying was, I have no training in chemistry nor in how carcinogens work - -but Ms. Streep and I have that in common, and nobody asked ME to testify to Congress. I am not famous.

You're also not an activist.

Article:

"Since my kids at the time were basically mainlining apple juice and applesauce, and I was fairly celebrated for my pies, this did alarm me," Streep said. She helped launch a grassroots organization, Mothers and Others for a Livable Planet, that joined with scientists from the Natural Resources Defense Council to warn of the dangers of the chemical.

Source: https://www.acsh.org/news/2022/11/07/archives-apples-alar-nrdc-and-meryl-streep-16642

It makes sense for politics to listen to those whom the public treats as authorities, because if you address their concerns, you address the public's concerns. This is the single reason why the press has power.

 

[Duke]

True, but then actors and singers and athletes and such also have a life when not working, and are often treated as authorities by some folks simply because they are famous. Recall Meryl Streep's testimony to congress concerning Alar being sprayed on apples. I don't know how safe or unsafe Alar spraying was, I have no training in chemistry nor in how carcinogens work - -but Ms. Streep and I have that in common, and nobody asked ME to testify to Congress. I am not famous.

Heck, Elmo the muppet testified before a congressional committee about music education funding. Elmo's credentials as an expert in this field seem lacking, since he does not exist. (Joke about "literal sock puppet" redacted because I could not make it sufficiently amusing.)

View attachment 65439
(Image source: https://www.loc.gov/item/2019646086/)

Celebrities are famous, so they must be important, so their opinions must be important, seems to be how the thinking goes. And we have celebrity flat Earthers, celebrity anti-inoculationists, celebrity UFO believers (one former Blink-182 member springs to mind!) and so on. Their opinions contribute to the public opinion on such topics out of all proportion to their actul expertise or knowledge.

In fairness, some of those celebrities know their stuff. In the late 1980s I flew from St Louis to LAX seated next to actress Morgan Fairchild, she was on her way back to LA after testifying before a Congressional committee on a social issue. Although our politics were diametrically opposed, I had great respect for her knowledge on that issue and how she expressed herself. Even more impressive to me was her knowledge of foreign policy and international events, this coming from a guy who was getting classified sitrep intel briefs every couple weeks at the time.

Another example is musician Jeff "Skunk" Baxter, guitarist for various bands, including the Doobie Brothers, Steely Dan, and The Best. In addition to being a R&R Hall of Fame guitarist, he's a widely recognized expert on missile defense systems.

His next-door neighbor was a retired engineer who had worked on the Sidewinder missile program.[7] This neighbor bought Baxter a subscription to Aviation Week magazine, provoking his interest in additional military-oriented publications and missile defense systems in particular. He became self-taught in this area, and at one point wrote a five-page paper that proposed converting the ship-based anti-aircraft Aegis missile into a rudimentary missile defense system.[7]

He gave the paper to California Republican Congressman Dana Rohrabacher, and his career as a defense consultant began. Baxter received a series of security clearances so he could work with classified information. In 1995, Pennsylvania Republican Congressman Curt Weldon, then the chairman of the House Military Research and Development Subcommittee, nominated Baxter to chair the Civilian Advisory Board for Ballistic Missile Defense.

Baxter's work with that panel led to consulting contracts with the Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency and National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency. He consults for the US Department of Defense and the US intelligence community, as well as defense-oriented manufacturers such as Science Applications International Corporation, Northrop Grumman Corp., General Dynamics, and General Atomics Aeronautical Systems Inc.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Baxter

 

[Ann K]

Celebrities are famous, so they must be important, so their opinions must be important, seems to be how the thinking goes. And we have celebrity flat Earthers, celebrity anti-inoculationists, celebrity UFO believers (one former Blink-182 member springs to mind!) and so on.

Celebrity presidents, Reagan and Trump, whose fame was a large factor in their election.

On the other end of the celebrity-expertise spectrum, let's not forget a glamorous movie star, Hedy Lamarr:

At the beginning of World War II, along with avant-gardecomposer George Antheil, she co-invented a radio guidance system for Allied torpedoes that used spread spectrum and frequency hopping technology to defeat the threat of radio jamming by the Axis powers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedy_Lamarr

 

[Mendel]

Celebrity presidents, Reagan and Trump, whose fame was a large factor in their election.

Also Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Justin Trudeau, Jimmy Morales, Vaclav Havel, Lech Kaczynski, Joseph Marcelo Ejercito Estrada. (via https://thegaze.media/news/from-actor-to-presidents )

 

[JMartJr]

In fairness, some of those celebrities know their stuff.

Yes, and I should have said so, mea culpa. But Ms. Streep's expertise as a chemist and knowledge of carcinogenesis, whatever her level of expertise actually was, was not why she was called to testify, and more pertinently not why she influenced a lot of people to adopt her point of view.

My position on this, to state it as succinctly as a long-winded guy like me can, is this: Some percentage of celebrities have points of view on science, UFOs, flatness of the Earth, food safety and what have you that are at odds with reality. Their public statements on these topics are a part of what molds public opinion, not because they are knowledgeable, but because they are famous and popular.

It makes sense for politics to listen to those whom the public treats as authorities, because if you address their concerns, you address the public's concerns.

But if the public chooses unwisely, and politicians follow the lead of ill-informed celebrity "experts" (or of the public opinion they help form), that would seem a Bad Thing if the goal is to make good decisions.

When you say "address the public's concerns," that may include "becoming aware of the public being misinformed, and explaining that no, we don't need thinly veiled chemtrail legislation and we don't have crashed UFOs in a warehouse somewhere and it is not flat," then that's not bad -- listening to celebrity spokespeople as experts is unwise, unless they actually have some level of expertise in the subject at hand, listening to them as a barometer of public opinion maybe not so much.

 

[Scaramanga]

'Coming UFO disclosure' always makes me laugh. It reminds me of the infamous Biblical scholar Hal Lindsey who forecast Armageddon and the rapture in the 70s, then a then a book specifically stating it would all be in the 80s, and so on...and he is still at it today.

So it is with UFOs, a topic I have followed since being a teen in the 70s. 'UFO disclosure' is always just around the corner. The current trend for UFOs to be associated with angels and demons is not even at all new.....you can find those ideas as far back as John Keele's 'Operation Trojan Horse' in 1970. Every 50 years or so, by which time people have forgotten we have been in this exact position before, it all gets re-hashed and once again disclosure is just around the corner. As it will no doubt be in 2073....rapture notwithstanding.

 

[NoParty]

'Coming UFO disclosure' always makes me laugh. It reminds me of the infamous Biblical scholar Hal Lindsey who forecast Armageddon and the rapture in the 70s, then a then a book specifically stating it would all be in the 80s, and so on...and he is still at it today.

I flinched hard at seeing the word "scholar" next to Lindsey's name. :0

Since (at least) the late '60s he's said the world is going to end in a few years.

Needless to say, he's been spectacularly wrong for 55 years. Hal, you had one job...

 

[Mendel]

I flinched hard at seeing the word "scholar" next to Lindsey's name. :0

Since (at least) the late '60s he's said the world is going to end in a few years.

I'm pretty sure a serious biblical scholar would know that the early Christians expected the end of the world soon, since the messias had already come and gone. The fact that the world did not end 1900 years ago should make any modern biblical scholar pause before treading in those early Christians' footsteps, with far less justification.

Talking to Alex Jones fans, they'll tell you he prophesied some things correctly, following the old recipe of predicting many things, and in hindsight cherry-picking those predictions that can be spun to have turned out true. Elizondo is trying the same spiel: if he always predicts a "fundamental change" within the year, then he can say he predicted it when some kind of change actually occurs—provided he can get his followers to put aside those predictions that failed.

 

[Ben Harris]

As most recently seen in the "Case of the Single Best Orb Picture Ever Recorded and Not Just a Butterfly AT ALL Trust Us" (Discussion of pre-release claims HERE, discussion of actual disappointing photo OVER HERE) this is not always a winning tactic. I suppose somebody, somewhere, was excited about the photo when it finally came out, but so far I've not seen a mention of it other than here on MB -- it's a big Internet, I can't keep track of it all, but it looks as if that pic disappeared with barely a ripple, for now at least.

No matter how hard you sell the sizzle, sooner or later you have to serve the steak. And while it is true that some folks can be kept happy with sizzle forever, if it ain't steak, just baloney, eventually some folks start to figure that out. That's why UFO interest comes in waves, as the old customers get tired of the baloney and it all dies down until a new batch of customers grows up.

Well stated.

 

[psikiwi]

True, but then actors and singers and athletes and such also have a life when not working, and are often treated as authorities by some folks simply because they are famous. Recall Meryl Streep's testimony to congress concerning Alar being sprayed on apples. I don't know how safe or unsafe Alar spraying was, I have no training in chemistry nor in how carcinogens work - -but Ms. Streep and I have that in common, and nobody asked ME to testify to Congress. I am not famous.

Heck, Elmo the muppet testified before a congressional committee about music education funding. Elmo's credentials as an expert in this field seem lacking, since he does not exist. (Joke about "literal sock puppet" redacted because I could not make it sufficiently amusing.)

View attachment 65439
(Image source: https://www.loc.gov/item/2019646086/)

Celebrities are famous, so they must be important, so their opinions must be important, seems to be how the thinking goes. And we have celebrity flat Earthers, celebrity anti-inoculationists, celebrity UFO believers (one former Blink-182 member springs to mind!) and so on. Their opinions contribute to the public opinion on such topics out of all proportion to their actul expertise or knowledge.

Or as Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal put it: (maybe this should just go straight to the Humour Thread...)

 

[Mendel]

Or as Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal put it: (maybe this should just go straight to the Humour Thread...)
View attachment 65630

When you're very good at flying military aircraft: "What are your views on UFOs?"

 

[Scaramanga]

I flinched hard at seeing the word "scholar" next to Lindsey's name. :0

He's an extremely good example of the trend of people carrying on growing a following despite numerous 'stuff is gonna happen soon' predictions that never come true. We're always just on the verge of the 'killshot' ( anyone remember that remote viewer who forecast the apocalyptic solar flare in 2012 or so ? ), or collision with the planet Nibiru ( every year for the past 20 or so ), or the rapture ( every year since 1970 according to Lindsey ) , or the release of top secret classified UFO stuff that 'proves' alien visitation.

Actually, there is an even more worrying trend lately, and extremely annoying it is too. You've probably all seen those ' Brian Cox reveals TERRIFYING discovery at CERN ' or ' Neil De Grasse Tyson reveals the Big Bang is false' type Youtube headlines that are usually for a video that provides no such comments. Such nonsense really makes me rethink my entire view on fake news and that it should be censored.

 

[JMartJr]

Such nonsense really makes me rethink my entire view on fake news and that it should be censored.

Or labeled, as Youtube did with Flat Earth vids. Censoring makes my teeth itch, but labeling is adding the host's free speech to go along with the creator's speech.

 

[Scaramanga]

Or labeled, as Youtube did with Flat Earth vids. Censoring makes my teeth itch, but labeling is adding the host's free speech to go along with the creator's speech.

I don't have a problem with those 'Brain Cox Reveals TERRIFYING Discovery At CERN' videos being completely censored....because they are little more than clickbait relying on statements people never actually made. There's now an entire industry of such videos and they are utterly annoying to have to wade through looking for the genuine stuff. I wish there was some way one could just block a channel on Youtube as many seem to come from the same 'content creator'....or 'liar' as we used to describe them in the old days.

 

[taurusclover21]

I wish there was some way one could just block a channel on Youtube

There is, of a sort. Hover over the title below the thumbnail that appears on your YT page. Click the three vertical dots. Then click "Don't recommend channel."

 

[FatPhil]

I don't have a problem with those 'Brain Cox Reveals TERRIFYING Discovery At CERN' videos being completely censored....because they are little more than clickbait relying on statements people never actually made. There's now an entire industry of such videos and they are utterly annoying to have to wade through looking for the genuine stuff. I wish there was some way one could just block a channel on Youtube as many seem to come from the same 'content creator'....or 'liar' as we used to describe them in the old days.

I saw those YT thumbnails in one of the recent Lehto vids, and wondered what was in them (didn't have the nous to copy their titles down or even hunt them out immediately, I was trying to wind down before sleep, and already doing too much with my brain). If they are predictale pattern-following lies, or deliberate distortions of the truth, does it make sense to "debunk the source", by finding the invalid patterns that are repeatedly used? (Yes, that means we'd need to watch a selection of his recent vids, but we do a lot of that kind of stuff anyway - I'd say we only need to find the first couple of logical fallacies, and identify just one misquote, we'd not need to fully debunk each video. It only takes one spoon of ordure to spoil a barrel of brandy.)

 

[JackTReason]

One factor in celebrities getting airtime, is that they are usually effective communicators who already have wide audiences that trust them. This is reality and can be used for good or ill. I agree that because someone is a celebrity it does not follow that they know what they are talking about, but sometimes they do. And it is also true (as we have seen from recent Congressional testimony) that some experts don't seem to know what they are talking about, or at least are too easily prone to leaps beyond reason.
The best answer is twofold. Obviously one is to try and educate the public in critical thinking. The other is to use popular celebrities with built in audiences to give voice to sound science and well-sourced data.
The idea of just poo-pooing celebrities because they are out of their lanes is foolish. People listen to them. That's reality. We should be using that. Pick some that seem reasonable and educate them on the facts of important subjects, and stick them in front of cameras and microphones.

 

[jarlrmai]

One factor in celebrities getting airtime, is that they are usually effective communicators who already have wide audiences that trust them. This is reality and can be used for good or ill. I agree that because someone is a celebrity it does not follow that they know what they are talking about, but sometimes they do. And it is also true (as we have seen from recent Congressional testimony) that some experts don't seem to know what they are talking about, or at least are too easily prone to leaps beyond reason.
The best answer is twofold. Obviously one is to try and educate the public in critical thinking. The other is to use popular celebrities with built in audiences to give voice to sound science and well-sourced data.
The idea of just poo-pooing celebrities because they are out of their lanes is foolish. People listen to them. That's reality. We should be using that. Pick some that seem reasonable and educate them on the facts of important subjects, and stick them in front of cameras and microphones.

The problem is you have "interested celebrities" who are most often down the same rabbit hole and "general public" celebrities who are not interested either way and are not going to jump into some obscure random conspiracy debate because you ask them, unless they are some sort of science communicator and for every Bill Nye/Neil Degrasse Tyson there's an Avi Loeb or Michio Kaku and you should see the hate Tyson gets on UFO platforms.

UFO conspiracy makes money, maybe a smallish (in comparison to other media) money, but it's there it's a niche and there's books to be sold, conventions to appear at and Patreon podcasts to appear on, not to mention social media revenue. Being sceptical makes no headlines and no money and only gains you weirdos hating you on the internet if you poke your real name above the barricades.

 

[NorCal Dave]

UFO conspiracy makes money, maybe a smallish (in comparison to other media) money, but it's there it's a niche and there's books to be sold, conventions to appear at and Patreon podcasts to appear on, not to mention social media revenue. Being sceptical makes no headlines and no money and only gains you weirdos hating you on the internet if you poke your real name above the barricades.

This is an important point. Just because UFOlogists aren't making huge celebrity sums of money, doesn't mean they're doing it for free, like most skeptics. It's a cottage industry with a number of side hustles, including as you mentioned, books, appearances, patrons and at least some ad revenue.

The upper echelons like Corbel and Knapp work different income streams. Their podcast Weaponized (and of course that's the name of a UFO podcast) as a YouTube channel has a respectable 266K subscribers with an average episode getting around 100k-150k views and a few up around 1/2 a million. One can trace Knapp's career as an everyday TV reporter in a mid-market station in Las Vegas that got the biggest story of his life with Bob Lazar and never looked back.

Over at Third Phase of the Moon on YouTube, the Cousins brothers have 809k subscribers who I guess will tune in to see any and all balloons, CGI, Maussan stuff and even a cattle gate in Hawaii that is presented as an entrance to Area 51.

Then there are books, although maybe not so much anymore and more importantly appearances. The average UFO festival may not be ComiCon San Diego, but like comic conventions, they have a built in if smaller audience. Elizondo and others are regulars on the alien convention circuit. I find it completely baffling that a small town like McMinnville OR has been hosting a UFO festival for 24 years that is second only to Roswell's festival based on 2 '50s era photos:

Although these images have come to be known as the "McMinnville UFO photographs", the Trent farm was actually located in Sheridan, Oregon, around nine miles (15 km) southwest of McMinnville.[73] The heated debate which followed between UFO researchers and skeptics made the town's name famous and has spurred an annual "UFO Festival" in McMinnville, the second largest such gathering in the United States to that of Roswell, New Mexico.[74]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMinnville,_Oregon

McMinnville is in the heart of the Willamette valley wine region and has it's own AVA but despite this, it's big wine and food event didn't seem to make it through COVID with 2019 being it's last year:

Sip! McMinnville Wine & Food Classic was established in 1993 as both a fun event for wine and food enthusiasts and a benefit for the children of St. James School. Over the years it has grown in attendance to over 15,000. Sip! is brought to you by the dedicated volunteer hours of families, staff, & friends of Saint James.

https://sipclassic.org/sip-event-info-mcminnville-wine-food-classic.html

Not so for the UFO festival, it's still going strong, and speaking of speakers, here's some past dignitaries:

So, Knapp, Walton, Corbel, LMH, Pope, Lazar, Knapp, Knapp, it's a revolving door. For this year we get someone much more serious:

https://ufofest.com/speakers/

To be fair, the event is hosted by a quirky hotel chain in the PNW and is more of a big party. If I already didn't have a trip planned for May, I would have checked it out. But the panel of speakers is considered serious.

 

[RTM]

Did they spell David Paulides' (of Missing 411 fame) name wrong. From a cursory glance I always found the 411 thing to be a bit of "nothing saying there's something weird, but bigfoot", I wonder will he mesh this and UFOs.

 

[NorCal Dave]

"nothing saying there's something weird, but bigfoot", I wonder will he mesh this and UFOs.

Yes.

 

[jdog]

- An abundance of people who have a YouTube channel as a means of recycling long-debunked cases, which can provide an easy-access portal to reach the naïve believers.

Also, the simple act of getting someone to click from Reddit or Twitter or whatever to load a video can generate ad revenue for the channel's owner, so there's a direct and easy reward for producing woo in your basement that didn't exist for previous generations. (YouTube and the other services are also paying incentives for churning out shorts.)

 

[Scaramanga]

I'd say we only need to find the first couple of logical fallacies, and identify just one misquote, we'd not need to fully debunk each video.

The problem is that very often the clickbait is the title itself, and 'Brian Cox Reveals TERRIFYING Discovery At Cern' makes no actual reference to Brian Cox in the video itself. A bit like all those 'UFO Disclosure' videos in which nothing whatever is actually disclosed.