Poll : Which DOD Navy video do you consider debunked ?

Which DOD Navy video do you consider debunked ?

  • Gimbal

    Votes: 28 68.3%
  • GoFast

    Votes: 34 82.9%
  • FLIR Nimitz

    Votes: 25 61.0%
  • None

    Votes: 7 17.1%

  • Total voters
    41

dimebag2

Active Member
I'm curious about the general opinion on this. I originally came to this forum after the 60 Minutes show on these Navy reports, doing some research and hearing they had been debunked.
After spending a lot of time to read the discussions here, and analyzing the videos myself, I don't think any of them is debunked (maybe GoFast but there are still some mysteries around it).

I though I would create a poll to check what is the general opinion on this. From the three DOD Navy videos (Gimbal, GoFast, Nimitz), select the ones that you consider as debunked.

By debunked, I mean do you think there is a solid conventional, earthly, explanation for the footage ?
(I'm not talking about debunking aspects of the videos that have been pushed to the public, i.e. GoFast being close to the water)
 
Last edited:

deirdre

Senior Member.
you are going to have to define how you are using the term "debunked". Only a specific claim can be debunked. Can you list the specific claims you are envisioning for those 3 videos?

ex:
Gimbal video shows a extraterrestrial spaceship

or

Gimbal video shows extraordinary aircraft maneuvering

or

Gimbal video shows an unidentified aerial phenomenon.
 

dimebag2

Active Member
Debunked in the sense that you think a conventional, earthly, explanation for the footage is credible.

Example, Gimbal is a distant plane, GoFast is a ballon , ...

From all I've read on this forum, I am personally not convinced by the glare-from-a-jet hypothesis for Gimbal, or the distant jet hypothesis for Nimitz. So I consider them not debunked.

The math tell us that GoFast can very well be a high-altitude and a not-so-fast object, but the fact that it was shot just before Gimbal adds to its mystery, because in my opinion Gimbal is insane. Not even talking about possible rotation, I am convinced that it shows an object slowing down and stopping mid-air. Definitely not a jet, so what ? Not debunked doesn't not mean it has to be E.T., but it is mind-blowing in the fact we cannot explain it.
 

dimebag2

Active Member
I've added the None option (my vote :p) but like I said if GoFast was an independent event I would consider it as debunked.
This poll is just to have a bit of fun and see where we are in terms of consensus on this forum.
 

Alphadunk

Active Member
None of them have been truly debunked because the objects displayed haven't been positively identified. People have "best guesses" about what the videos show but none of them have been debunked in the same way as the Chile video (airliner), Mexican video (oil rig), Shanghai triangle (shadow), etc.

There simply isn't enough information available to positively identify the objects in the videos and so much time has passed at this point I think it's exceedingly unlikely we'll ever get a positive identification.
 
It's easy to call them nothingburgers, less easy to demonstrate what they are, i.e. the 20-page long threads that are still ongoing
Sometimes the obvious has to be repeated...I've been trying to get just one major newspaper to stop pushing these videos, but the ground is very stony.

PS - They have all been debunked, endlessly...I'm hoping someone might make a really good (and at least moderately interesting) fake UFO video, just so we would have something better to disagree about!
 

Leonardo Cuellar

Active Member
For me it was debunked only the sudden movement in FLIR1, due to a simultaneous unlocking and change of FOV. For the rest we are certainly not in front of a jet, a weather balloon or a bird, but probably some technologically advanced drone or device.
 

dimebag2

Active Member
For me it was debunked only the sudden movement in FLIR1, due to a simultaneous unlocking and change of FOV. For the rest we are certainly not in front of a jet, a weather balloon or a bird, but probably some technologically advanced drone or device.

Yes that's why what we means by debunked is important. The aspects of the video that have been pushed to the general public are questionable, or even wrong : GoFast being close to the water, FLIR accelerating like hell at the end of the video, Gimbal rotating ...

But there are much more interesting aspects in these videos, and at the end of the day they are really hard to explain. I don't know if it was deliberate to simplify the message for the public, or really neglect from those who analyzed and hyped these videos (I'm thinking about TTSA specifically). But I think they are legit DOD videos with truly interesting things.

Here I'd like to focus on the second aspect : did you find there is a solid conventional explanation for them ?
 
Last edited:

Leonardo Cuellar

Active Member
Yes that's why what we means by debunked is important. The aspects of the video that have been pushed to the general public are questionable, or even wrong : GoFast being close to the water, FLIR accelerating like hell at the end of the video, Gimbal rotating ...

But there are much more interesting aspects in these videos, and at the end of the day they are really hard to explain. I don't know if it was deliberate to simplify the message for the public, or really neglect from those who analyzed and hyped these videos (I'm thinking about TTSA specifically). But I think they are legit DOD videos with truly interesting things.

Here I'd like to focus on the second aspect : did you find there is a solid conventional explanation for them ?
I believe that we are facing a much more complex situational awareness than the video itself tells us. Certainly in GOFAST it would seem that there is nothing special. But if the pilots had instead identified the object as a capsule with no aerodynamic surfaces and no visible propulsion going at 100 knots, it is clear that that video is no longer anonymous. I have a tangible feeling that they are secret programs. The locations, i.e. the operations areas in front of the fleet bases and lately also near the Kirtland AFB, are as significant as the Nellis AFB was in past years. I have the feeling that a very important step has been taken in the field of electromagnetic propulsion and in other disciplines such as superconductivity and metamaterials. And what we see are prototypes.
 

George Stathis

New Member
All 3 seem debunked in my book. Unless there is additional sensor video that we are missing ( e.g tv video for the gimbal ) none of them see extraordinary in any way and seem to be explained.
 

LilWabbit

Active Member
The (1) purely speculative hypothesis the Navy videos feature alien crafts even when they do not, after closer analysis, feature any particularly extraordinary properties or characteristics hasn't been debunked, and cannot be debunked. But the (2) scientifically testable hypothesis the Navy videos feature feats of flight and other properties uncharacteristic to all known human technology has been debunked. And somewhat conclusively at that. A clearer distinction between the two is important if indeed science education is our goal.

I have yet to read a counter-argument to Mick's debunking of hypothesis #2 that demonstrates an evident error or a glaring loop-hole in his analysis. Those who claim they have produced such counter-arguments have, in my honest reading, done one or both of the following things: They have either (1) misunderstood Mick's analysis on some specific point, or (2) demonstrated errors (sometimes obvious, sometimes less) in their own counter-argument.

Therefore I voted "debunked" for all three.
 

Keith Beachy

Senior Member
Evidence exposes the Navy/DOD has no clue what is on the videos. No evidence for ET, no evidence for advance technology, no evidence for physics-defying craft. Evidence is clear, media has no scruples, giving a stage to what could be UFO nuts who think there is something to the latest UFO craze. Harry Reid, hopefully is not able to get his buddies to study UFOs again with taxpayer money used to chase ET craft.

Are the videos which prove nothing debunked? What is there to debunk? Kind of makes all the videos pre-debunked... due to lack of evidence to support the opinions and speculation of advanced tech, physics-defying craft, and possible ET craft. Are opinions and hearsay automatically debunked?

What debunks some of the videos (I mean the comments and analysis) for me, when someone compares the images to classical UFOs in the past. Especially when the old UFO image was fake.
 

LilWabbit

Active Member
Evidence exposes the Navy/DOD has no clue what is on the videos. No evidence for ET, no evidence for advance technology, no evidence for physics-defying craft. Evidence is clear, media has no scruples, giving a stage to what could be UFO nuts who think there is something to the latest UFO craze. Harry Reid, hopefully is not able to get his buddies to study UFOs again with taxpayer money used to chase ET craft.

Are the videos which prove nothing debunked? What is there to debunk? Kind of makes all the videos pre-debunked... due to lack of evidence to support the opinions and speculation of advanced tech, physics-defying craft, and possible ET craft. Are opinions and hearsay automatically debunked?

What debunks some of the videos (I mean the comments and analysis) for me, when someone compares the images to classical UFOs in the past. Especially when the old UFO image was fake.

The three videos do provide evidence for something, namely non-extraordinary flight by fuzzy-looking things. Nothing less, nothing more.

Even the foregoing qualifies as some information, despite low in detail, and hence it would be incorrect to say the Navy/DoD has "no clue" what's on the videos. In fact, irrelevant outsiders have no clue what the DoD knows or doesn't know about the videos, except that they likely know the barest minimum already stated:

Non-extraordinary flight by fuzzy-looking things.
 

FatPhil

Active Member
The (1) purely speculative hypothesis the Navy videos feature alien crafts even when they do not, after closer analysis, feature any particularly extraordinary properties or characteristics hasn't been debunked, and cannot be debunked. But the (2) scientifically testable hypothesis the Navy videos feature feats of flight and other properties uncharacteristic to all known human technology has been debunked. And somewhat conclusively at that. A clearer distinction between the two is important if indeed science education is our goal.

I know what you're saying, but to be honest, I think (2) is enough. (2) destroys the narrative, and to me, that's mission accomplished. It's not our job to know what it is, it's our job to show they're full of shit. Once their reputation is unambiguously that of a completely unreliable source, it turns off the whole stream of nonsense from that point on. I think at that point the "education" has happened. That has better leverage than any single object-identifying debunk. I don't care to run around cleaning up messes, I want the shitnozzle turned off at source.
 

Tomer

Member
I think there is an unhelpful tendency on this forum to assume something is debunked at the first hurdle and I think it stems from an unhealthy need to be right that interestingly parallels the true believers on the other side of the spectrum.

The calculations for the GOFAST debunk seem really solid, the only hesitancy I have being on the RNG number which quite a few pilots seem to say isn't reliable. I think it's good to be critical of the pilots and authorities positions on this, history shows that both the government and the military can get things very wrong, but again there seems to be an almost tangible desire for these experienced people to be wrong on all fronts, which again I don't think is healthy for a skeptical debate.

As for the GIMBAL, I don't know, I've looked at the jet engine flare videos and honestly I don't think it's the same thing, other people's experience may vary, but when looking at other debunks, there's normally a moment where you see a recreation of the effect (the bokeh video, the utah drone video ) and it clicks into place, for me that hasn't happened with the GIMBAL. As for the rotation...I'm not sure whether it is or isn't rotating affects its status as a UAP.

The FLIR Nimitz video well, this video on its own is unremarkable and I will agree it looks something like a distant engine glare. What is more important with this video is how it fits into the timeline of events described by many credible witnesses on the USS Nimitz. So for me, I consider the FLIR video to be one small part of a much larger case, not particularly convincing on its own but interesting as part of a larger story.

In conclusion, I don't consider of any of these as debunked, I consider two of the videos to have reasonable, potential explanations that may or may not fit into the larger framework of the UAP issue.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
I think there is an unhelpful tendency on this forum to assume something is debunked at the first hurdle

first hurdle? it's been 3 years and thousands of people (maybe millions worldwide) analyzing these things.

In conclusion, I don't consider of any of these as debunked
did you read the thread to see what is meant by "debunked" in this case? That is clarified in the first sentence in post #4.
 

Tomer

Member
first hurdle? it's been 3 years and thousands of people (maybe millions worldwide) analyzing these things.


did you read the thread to see what is meant by "debunked" in this case? That is clarified in the first sentence in post #4.
I think based on reading your previous responses that you may have a problem with literalism. The phrase 'the first hurdle' in this instance is not a reference to the time period in which these videos have been released, my point is that some people consider it a debunk as soon as there is one credible alternative explanation. That may be how other people wish to see it, I consider something debunked when there is a conclusive explanation that fits all the available evidence beyond reasonable doubt, otherwise I consider it unknown still.

I could have responded to this thread with someone else's definition of debunked in mind, to me that seemed limiting and not conducive to debate, I feel I put enough context in my original post that this would be clear to most people, perhaps I was wrong.

I will say as well that the opinion of the US govt seems to be that this UAP issue at the very least is not 'debunked'. Now I don't take their word as gospel, but similarly I don't blindly accept the word of an internet forum either. Does that make sense?
 

jarlrmai

Senior Member
I think based on reading your previous responses that you may have a problem with literalism. The phrase 'the first hurdle' in this instance is not a reference to the time period in which these videos have been released, my point is that some people consider it a debunk as soon as there is one credible alternative explanation. That may be how other people wish to see it, I consider something debunked when there is a conclusive explanation that fits all the available evidence beyond reasonable doubt, otherwise I consider it unknown still.

I could have responded to this thread with someone else's definition of debunked in mind, to me that seemed limiting and not conducive to debate, I feel I put enough context in my original post that this would be clear to most people, perhaps I was wrong.

I will say as well that the opinion of the US govt seems to be that this UAP issue at the very least is not 'debunked'. Now I don't take their word as gospel, but similarly I don't blindly accept the word of an internet forum either. Does that make sense?
Debunked does not mean identified.

It means "expose the falseness or hollowness of (an idea or belief)."

It really doesn't matter what you think it means.

Something can be unidentified and yet debunked if the idea about it (the claim/bunk) is shown to be false.

The classic example is Go Fast, no-one here says definitively that we know what it is, however there is an idea that it shows something low and fast, yet maths on the figures shown show that is not, thus the idea is debunked without us knowing exactly what it is.
 

Mauro

Active Member
my point is that some people consider it a debunk as soon as there is one credible alternative explanation.

Indeed, and this is exactly how logic is supposed to work. Once the probability of 'mundan phenomena' is greater than the probability of, say, 'aliens', then they're probably not aliens.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
you may have a problem with literalism.
lol. i'm a girl who believes in fairies and angels. i doubt i have a problem with literalism.

I consider something debunked when there is a conclusive explanation that fits all the available evidence beyond reasonable doubt, otherwise I consider it unknown still.

which is fine on threads other than this one. the poll is meaningless if we are all using different definitions (or if the OP, @dimebag2 keeps changing the defintion) of "debunked" as it relates to the data the poll wishes to gather.
 

Alphadunk

Active Member
but again there seems to be an almost tangible desire for these experienced people to be wrong on all fronts, which again I don't think is healthy for a skeptical debate.

I picked up on this as well but it's really only when the experienced people are sayings things that impede the path to a prosaic explanation. Rightly or wrongly, Fravor and his testimony is routinely critiqued and dragged through the mud here yet when Dietrich uttered the words "5 to 10 seconds" it was settled science, not up for debate, that she was correct and her time estimate shouldn't really be questioned. Why the disparity? Because a very short timeframe for the encounter makes misidentification far more likely. Same reason the 10-second timeframe is rarely even acknowledged as being possible by believers.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
Because a very short timeframe for the encounter makes

makes much more sense. Fravor's own story didn't sound like a 5 minute interaction with the "object". and Jim Slaight telling didnt sound like a 5 minute interaction. and Fravor says they were low on fuel before they even got there, and noone talked about "after the detour and 5 minutes with the object we were really concerned about our fuel"
 

JMartJr

Senior Member
Extraordinary claims were made for what the three original videos show.

It was claimed Flir1/Nimitz captured sudden accelerations -- on analysis, it does not capture evidence of noticeable acceleration at all, rather the image jumps as zoom levels change, then the target appears to move out of frame when the camera stops tracking it. The claim is debunked.

It was claimed that GoFast captured an object moving at incredible speeds, zipping along low over the ocean -- on analysis, it does not, rather the target is at a high altitude and seems to move in one direction against the background as the plane moves in the other direction. The claim is debunked. (And the argument that "well maybe the range data is wrong" is not convincing counter-argument. The data is the data we have, and "maybe it is wrong" leaves "and maybe it was right" on the table until somebody can prove it is wrong. There is no need to assume fantastic speeds to explain what is shown in the video.)

It was claimed that Gimbal shows a flying object that undergoes a strange rotation -- on analysis, it does not, rather the rotation of the target corresponds to the rotation of the gimbal mount of the atflir system that recorded the video. The rotation happens at the time of camera rotation, and in the direction that would be expected as the software holds the image horizon in place. The claim is debunked.

So I voted that all three have been debunked. Though I do not know absolutely what any of the three targets were, I am satisfied that the claims made about them have been shown to be unsupported by the what is actually in the videos.

The idea here, as I understand it, is that MetaBunk exists to debunk specific claims made, not to positively identify every mysterious something too far away to tell what it is which gets posted. It is tempting to debunk a claim made about a video by saying "Well, we can show it was a plane, and planes cannot do what is claimed, so it cannot have done that." And in cases where it can be reasonably proven that the object was in fact a plane, that is an effective debunk! But positive identification is not the ONLY way to debunk a claim.

Look at https://www.metabunk.org/threads/white-flying-object-over-us-navy-base-in-japan-july-2021.11898/
There is no real specific claim made to be debunked, the implicit claim is, I guess, "This looks unusual." The only real debunk possible is "No, it does not really look unusual, there is nothing there that is not consistent with a piece of windblown trash, or a drone, or a bird, or..." any number of other things. It is unlikely that it will ever be possible to identify exactly what the white spec moving across the screen was. But it has been adequately debunked to my satisfaction -- it does not show evidence of anything unusual happening.

Could any of the targets in the Navy vids have been something mysterious -- aliens, super tech belonging to this or that government, interdimensional somethings intruding into our dimension, angels, demons? Maybe. Assuming any of those exist, it is impossible to prove that any of the three is not something from that sort of category. Even if more video showed up that showed "American Airlines" painted on the side of the Flir1 target, it could still be claimed that the government or the aliens or whoever did that to hide the truth. To me, that is unlikely to the point of ridiculousness, but technically possible. But what MetaBunk can do, and has done well, is look into whether claims that might support such an interpretation are in fact supported by the vids. We (well, you, I just watched with interest) have done that with these vids -- they might possibly show something weird, there is just no reason to think that they do.

That's my $0.02, your mileage may vary. And apologies for the wordiness -- you shoulda seen it before I edited it down! :)
 

dimebag2

Active Member
which is fine on threads other than this one. the poll is meaningless if we are all using different definitions (or if the OP, @dimebag2 keeps changing the defintion) of "debunked" as it relates to the data the poll wishes to gather.

Hey I don't keep changing the definition, after you first comment I added a sentence in bold in post #1 to clarify what I meant :
By debunked, I mean do you think there is a solid conventional, earthly, explanation for the footage ?
(and I don't mean solid like a rock ok :))

This is an interesting discussion.Clearly there are two levels for debunking for answering the question above :

1) debunking the claims that these videos show extraordinary acceleration and/or movement. This is basically debunking To the Stars Academy and what has been circulated in the medias. For example this analysis of Gimbal : https://thevault.tothestarsacademy.com/gimbal

I completely respect this point of view and I get that it is the one shared by many here. But to me, this is half the job. If a friend who has not followed closely this stuff asks me if the videos are debunked, simply say "oh it shows nothing unusual" is not enough for me. I want to be able to say something about what is on the footage, at least give an hypothesis that makes sense with the numbers we have. I feel like this is level 2 of debunking, and the one I expected when coming here.

2) debunking by giving a plausible and conventional hypothesis for what is captured.

On this one I think we're not there, and I will simply copy this post by Tomer because I have the exact same point of view.
The calculations for the GOFAST debunk seem really solid, the only hesitancy I have being on the RNG number which quite a few pilots seem to say isn't reliable. I think it's good to be critical of the pilots and authorities positions on this, history shows that both the government and the military can get things very wrong, but again there seems to be an almost tangible desire for these experienced people to be wrong on all fronts, which again I don't think is healthy for a skeptical debate.

As for the GIMBAL, I don't know, I've looked at the jet engine flare videos and honestly I don't think it's the same thing, other people's experience may vary, but when looking at other debunks, there's normally a moment where you see a recreation of the effect (the bokeh video, the utah drone video ) and it clicks into place, for me that hasn't happened with the GIMBAL. As for the rotation...I'm not sure whether it is or isn't rotating affects its status as a UAP.

The FLIR Nimitz video well, this video on its own is unremarkable and I will agree it looks something like a distant engine glare. What is more important with this video is how it fits into the timeline of events described by many credible witnesses on the USS Nimitz. So for me, I consider the FLIR video to be one small part of a much larger case, not particularly convincing on its own but interesting as part of a larger story.

In conclusion, I don't consider of any of these as debunked, I consider two of the videos to have reasonable, potential explanations that may or may not fit into the larger framework of the UAP issue.

I would add that more than the glare hypothesis for Gimbal, this is its trajectory that makes it not debunked at all, as it stops at the end of the video (based on geometrical reconstruction of its trajectory). As for Nimitz, there are many questions about the jet hypothesis that when all added together makes me seriously doubt about it : no range detected, unknown plane (what are the odds??), unrealistic high speeds for a distant plane, ... Added to the pilot testimonies that we would have to completely ignore, this is too much for me.

Anyway, even if we don't agree on what level of debunking is "debunked enough", that's part of the poll to capture the different sensibilities on whether it has been done or not.
 
Last edited:

Tomer

Member
Debunked does not mean identified.

It means "expose the falseness or hollowness of (an idea or belief)."

It really doesn't matter what you think it means.

Something can be unidentified and yet debunked if the idea about it (the claim/bunk) is shown to be false.

The classic example is Go Fast, no-one here says definitively that we know what it is, however there is an idea that it shows something low and fast, yet maths on the figures shown show that is not, thus the idea is debunked without us knowing exactly what it is.

Debunked does not mean identified.

It means "expose the falseness or hollowness of (an idea or belief)."

It really doesn't matter what you think it means.

Something can be unidentified and yet debunked if the idea about it (the claim/bunk) is shown to be false.

The classic example is Go Fast, no-one here says definitively that we know what it is, however there is an idea that it shows something low and fast, yet maths on the figures shown show that is not, thus the idea is debunked without us knowing exactly what it is.

Debunked does not mean identified.

It means "expose the falseness or hollowness of (an idea or belief)."

It really doesn't matter what you think it means.

Something can be unidentified and yet debunked if the idea about it (the claim/bunk) is shown to be false.

The classic example is Go Fast, no-one here says definitively that we know what it is, however there is an idea that it shows something low and fast, yet maths on the figures shown show that is not, thus the idea is debunked without us knowing exactly what it is.
Where do I say that debunk means identified? I don't believe I even used the word 'identified'

If you read my post again you'll see that I think the maths on GOFAST seem solid, however I have doubts about the RNG figure as several pilots have reported this number is an estimation. I do not need to 'identify' the object to consider it debunked, I would be happy if a couple of experts, someone like Mick, someone with working experience of an ATFLIR and I don't know, maybe a pilot sat down, discussed all the HUD information and did the calculations. Let's face it, there are most likely people within the US government that have done this already, who knows, maybe it's been internally debunked, and maybe it hasn't.
 

Tomer

Member
Indeed, and this is exactly how logic is supposed to work. Once the probability of 'mundan phenomena' is greater than the probability of, say, 'aliens', then they're probably not aliens.
hmmm I don't remember saying it was aliens, indeed I believe you're the first person to say Aliens in this thread. Be wary of the strawman Mauro.
 

jarlrmai

Senior Member
hmmm I don't remember saying it was aliens, indeed I believe you're the first person to say Aliens in this thread. Be wary of the strawman Mauro.
"conclusive explanation that fits all the available evidence"

You say this in your post which admittedly does not explicitly say "identified."

Can you clarify what you mean by this, lets say in the context of Go Fast?
 

Mauro

Active Member
hmmm I don't remember saying it was aliens, indeed I believe you're the first person to say Aliens in this thread. Be wary of the strawman Mauro.
In fact I was careful to specify "..., say, 'aliens' ". It could have been 'Russian or Chinese or Iranian hypothetical amazing technology', or 'ghosts' or 'demons' or any other non-ordinary cause: the point was not to debunk the specific ideas you may have about the three videos (I don't even know what those ideas are), but rather it was to notice that considering "a credible alternative explanation" not to be a debunk is illogical.
Tomer said:
my point is that some people consider it a debunk as soon as there is one credible alternative explanation.
Those 'some people' reason with good logic.
 
Last edited:

deirdre

Senior Member.
Hey I don't keep changing the definition, after you first comment I added a sentence in bold in post #1 to clarify what I meant :
By debunked, I mean do you think there is a solid conventional, earthly, explanation for the footage ?
yea but that is slightly different then what you first told me in #4. i was gonna change one of my votes due to the new wording, then thought "screw it". so my votes are in response to your definition in post 4.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
Anyway, even if we don't agree on what level of debunking is "debunked enough", that's part of the poll to capture the different sensibilities on whether it has been done or not.
fair enough. MB does enjoy delving into explanations too. But maybe you can start a poll and ask which NAVY videos exhibit enough evidence to think they might be extraterrestrial. It seems you are asking alot from the debunkers, but not alot from the woo spreaders. <that is just my viewpoint of course.
 

LilWabbit

Active Member
Both skeptics and believers must obviously guard against two extremes:

(1) Deliberately raising the standard of debunking so high as to necessarily condemn for failure every effort to disprove the extraordinariness of a particular physical record with reasonable confidence and sufficient detail (serves the so-called 'believers').

(2) Deliberately lowering the standard of debunking so low as to exonerate the debunker entirely from all burden to demonstrate the explanatory strength of a specific mundane hypothesis (whether a balloon, a plane, a bird, a drone, airborne clutter or otherwise) and to defend that hypothesis against reasonable critique (serves the so-called 'skeptics').

Neither would qualify as 'fair play' in my book.

Those engaging in #1 often demonstrate belief preceding evidence. Sometimes they also show insincere or restrained openness to mundane explanations. Those engaging in #2 often demonstrate, after a few rounds of more immersive exchange on the evidence, impatience and irritation towards said lack of real openness to what can be reasonably deemed as likelier explanations. This annoyance is not constructive (I am often guilty as charged). But it is often misconstrued as total lack of openness to creative explanations. However, it actually stems from an intuitive sense that earthly explanations for low-quality sensor data obtained on earth, no matter how strange at a cursory glance, are always more likely than other-worldly ones.

And yet, if better data is provided, at least yours truly is more than willing to question his intuition, acutely aware that he's but a fallible earthling.
 
Last edited:

Itsme

Active Member
There's a difference between a skeptic and a debunker.

A skeptic will simply evaluate a claim against the evidence provided. If the evidence is ambiguous, the claim is not accepted and the object remains unidentified.

A debunker works from a belief system that the claim and the evidence are just 'bunk' and tries to present an alternative claim that fits the evidence. This claim is sometimes called an 'explanation' because a debunker feels a need to educate the general public which is all too gullible and to expose the people who abuse this gullibility. If the evidence to that alternative claim is disputed, however, a debunker tends to get annoyed because their belief system in under attack.

I must say that calling this site 'metabunk' does not do it justice, because the debunkers in UFO history often pushed ridiculous alternative claims that did not even remotely fit the data, and they got away with it because both the press and scientists did not bother to check.
At least this site does a better job of checking their alternative claims against the data. Sometimes an old-school debunker pops up in the discussions with an outlandish claim and he is treated with healthy criticism by Mick as well, which is refreshing.

The data is there, for instance on http://www.nicap.org/onlinebooks.htm. Or read the French Cometa report, English translation available at https://www.narcap.de/dokumente/COMETA-Report-englisch.pdf

But you know what they say about bringing a horse to the water...
 
Last edited:

Mendel

Senior Member.
A debunker works from a belief system that the claim and the evidence are just 'bunk' and tries to present an alternative claim that fits the evidence. This claim is sometimes called an 'explanation' because a debunker feels a need to educate the general public which is all too gullible and to expose the people who abuse this gullibility. If the evidence to that alternative claim is disputed, however, a debunker tends to get annoyed because their belief system in under attack.
It's nice if the alternate claim has better support than the claim being debunked, but shouldn't equal strength of support for either be fair enough?
and wouldn't you get annoyed if you were held to a higher standard than the other guy?

also, in my experience, debunking claims with little support are phrased as "it could be" (or even "could it be?") instead of a believer's "it must be".
 

Keith Beachy

Senior Member
There's a difference between a skeptic and a debunker.

A skeptic will simply evaluate a claim against the evidence provided. If the evidence is ambiguous, the claim is not accepted and the object remains unidentified.

A debunker works from a belief system that the claim and the evidence are just 'bunk' and tries to present an alternative claim that fits the evidence. This claim is sometimes called an 'explanation' because a debunker feels a need to educate the general public which is all too gullible and to expose the people who abuse this gullibility. If the evidence to that alternative claim is disputed, however, a debunker tends to get annoyed because their belief system in under attack.

I must say that calling this site 'metabunk' does not do it justice, because the debunkers in UFO history often pushed ridiculous alternative claims that did not even remotely fit the data, and they got away with it because both the press and scientists did not bother to check.
At least this site does a better job of checking their alternative claims against the data. Sometimes an old-school debunker pops up in the discussions with an outlandish claim and he is treated with healthy criticism by Mick as well, which is refreshing.

The data is there, for instance on http://www.nicap.org/onlinebooks.htm. Or read the French Cometa report, English translation available at https://www.narcap.de/dokumente/COMETA-Report-englisch.pdf

But you know what they say about bringing a horse to the water...
???UFO books, which one has evidence of ET? Data?

Debunking is when a claim is investigated and found to be False. Example. Flight 77 did a fantastic spiral maneuver to hit the Pentagon. A debunker investigates, finds the FDR, and see the fantastic professional maneuver was nonsense, and evidence shows a novice pilot, poor bank control, poor speed control, and done because the plane was too high at arrival, a poorly done 360 degree let down, what a novice pilot has to do to get down. That is debunking, being a skeptic about a claim, and destroying the claim with facts, evidence, science, physics, and knowledge.

Debunking is skeptics using science, and replying to woo posted by people who never did more than repost woo, in some cases... some invent the woo to make money, some let contracts to investigate UFOs, wasting taxpayer money.

Debunkers are skeptics who reply to woo.

UFOs belief based on ET being the culprit, there is no evidence.
 

Tomer

Member
This is an interesting video about a common urban legend (you eat eight spiders when you sleep) and the proposed 'debunk' that it was introduced by a columnist called Lisa Holst who took it from a book on insect folklore. This transpires to not be a true story at all, the original book barely mentions spiders and Lisa Holst and the article in question appear not to exist, and yet this 'debunk' is often cited as the explanation when publications talk about this legend.

Only tangentially related but I believe serves to highlight how quick we can be to trust the first likely debunk we hear without investigating the investigation.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjlKIjLWq-Y
 

Scaramanga

Member
Mick West's debunking of the 'go fast' video is one of the best debunks I have ever seen. All the more so when one considers how Lue Elizondo and the guys from AATIP and TTSA were gushing over the supposedly amazing speed of the object...on the Unidentified series where they presented several 'experts' who were likewise amazed. Yet all those supposed 'experts' never thought to do what Mick West did, which was to simply analyse the data on the video itself, from which one can very clearly see that the 'speed' of the object is a parallax effect.

I myself have gone from being a firm 'believer' to being very highly skeptical of all UFOs, because I have now seen so many 'best ever' cases resoundingly debunked. It gets to the point where one does wonder if there's actually anything left to the phenomenon other than mis-identifications.
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Mendel Poll Finds Many Believe QAnon And Other Conspiracy Theories General Discussion 13
Mick West Debunked: Video of Poll Worker "Filling In" Ballots. Election 2020 3
D How do you think about debunking? General Discussion 29
Oxymoron Poll: Should the U.S Attack Syria? General Discussion 51
Rroval Man Claims Mars Space Station Discovered On Google Mars (VIDEO, POLL) UFOs and Aliens 2
SR1419 New Poll: Conspiracy Beliefs Fall Along Party Lines General Discussion 0
Mick West Conspiracy Theory Poll Results Shows Party/Age/Race Splits on Chemtrails, etc. Contrails and Chemtrails 21
Clock Poll: Do you think that threads should be closed after being debunked? Site Feedback & News 6
George B Poll . . .What makes people who believe in the Chemtrail conspiracy tick. . ?. . Choo Contrails and Chemtrails 76
banditsat12oclock US Navy "UFO" patent by Salvatore Cezar Pais UFOs and Aliens 8
M FLIR Technician Discusses Navy videos and claims to refute Mick's claims UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 300
LorentzHall White Flying Object Over US Navy base in Japan (July 2021) Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 14
Mick West Corbell: "Unidentified glowing objects near US Navy ship" [Planes or drones?] UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 17
Agent K Why all the UFO reports from the Navy, and not the Air Force? UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 13
bird_up "Gimbal UFO video rendered in 3D" by Abominati0n UFOs and Aliens 5
Mick West The Evolution of Official DoD/Pentagon Statements Regarding The Navy UFO Videos and UAP Investigations UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 6
Mick West Explained: New Navy UFO Videos UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 210
Mick West Are the Navy UFOs "Real," or just in the Low Information Zone? UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 31
Mick West Why Michio Kaku is wrong about the UFO Burden of Proof & Navy Videos UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 38
Getoffthisplanet Flir1, Go Fast, Gimbal - Navy Releases New Information: Official Dates UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 9
Getoffthisplanet Navy spokesman Gradisher's definition of UAP UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 12
Mick West Cube in a Sphere UFO's Seen by Navy pilots. Radar Targets? UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 17
Mick West NYT: GIMBAL Video of U.S. Navy Jet Encounter with Unknown Object UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 814
Mick West Explained: Chilean Navy "UFO" video - Aerodynamic Contrails, Flight IB6830 Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 186
MikeG Claim: Secret Navy Electromagnetic Warfare Training Conspiracy Theories 0
TEEJ Contrails during Russian Navy Cruise Missile Strike in Syria, 2015 Contrails and Chemtrails 3
Mick West Debunked: Leaked US Navy Map, New Madrid, Submerged US General Discussion 40
Gary Cook Debunked: 'Gun used in Navy Yard shooting was an assault rifle.' General Discussion 8
Alhazred The Sane Alex Jones & the Navy Yard Shootings Conspiracy Theories 1
Mick West Washington Navy Yard Shootings - False Flag Conspiracy Theories? Conspiracy Theories 73
FreiZeitGeist HAARP-Website offline (Navy renegotiating management contract) HAARP 28
dizzle Boston: Navy Seals Boston Marathon Bombings 28
Cairenn US Navy map of US General Discussion 13
J Poltergeist activity caught on video? Ghosts, Monsters, and the Paranormal 15
Rory Claim: Pfizer sponsors many mainstream TV shows (with the implication being that can lead to bad things) Coronavirus COVID-19 68
Leonardo Cuellar Could The Gimbal Video Show an Atlas V Launch? UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 312
S Did NIST edit WTC building 7 footage? 9/11 4
N Explained: "Jellyfish object" video in Russia [Rocket Launch] Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 11
F Example of a Boeing 737 "Tic Tac" (video) UFOs and Aliens 9
ki_cz Need help debunking FE video Flat Earth 42
R Video of UFOs around/on the sun - Sunspots and a Bird UFOs and Aliens 15
LorentzHall Elizondo Claims DoD Have A 50-Feet-Away Photo & 23 Minute Video UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 30
R Explained: Video of Vandenberg UFO shooting down ICBM [reenactment] UFOs and Aliens 8
Vara La Fey Video of all FAA mandated aircraft lights? Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 7
V Needs debunking: flat earthers claim this reflection to show a harness in ISS video Flat Earth 10
M Any explanation for this UFO video? UFOs and Aliens 6
V Gimbal Video Interactive Software/Program UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 16
S Does this video footage show a dragon (sea serpent) attacking a manatee? [No] Ghosts, Monsters, and the Paranormal 4
A USS Omaha UFO / UAP Radar Video UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 257
CeruleanBlu Video summary of Independent Forensic Team Report on Oroville Dam Oroville Dam 2
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top