Szydagis : Addressing the Most Common Criticisms Against Studying UAP

Not open for further replies.


Senior Member.

Addressing the Most Common Criticisms Against Studying UAP​

From the article:
External Quote:

Despite numerous newspaper articles from trustworthy sources in the
mainstream media [1], despite Pentagon admissions [2] and Congressional hearings [3], interest in UAP studies is met with laughter and derision, both from inside and outside of the scientific community, including from prominent science communicators [4]. Why is this the case? Let’s break down the common criticisms of UFOlogy/UAP studies and debunk the debunkers for a change. While some of the arguments will be generic, I will spend a great deal of time on aliens, a common hypothesis requiring significant attention, but this essay should not be read as a list of counter-arguments only in favor of aliens.

A fairly well written (and lengthy) article that addresses many of the arguments we commonly see here. I don't agree with a number of Dr Szydagis' conclusions based strictly on what he presented, but think he makes enough good points that I felt the article would generate discussion here.
Last edited by a moderator:
The "most common criticisms", according to this article, are:
External Quote:

(1) Cameras continue to improve in resolution, but there is still no good image or “smoking gun” video of UAP. Doesn’t that “prove” that this is all nonsense?

(2) “It’s curious that Asia and Africa have so few sightings despite their large populations, and even more surprising that the sightings stop at the Canadian and Mexican borders.”

(3) Interstellar travel is way too hard due to the great distances and times involved.

(4) If it IS aliens, why don’t they just land on the White House lawn and reveal themselves?

(5) Why would an alien spacecraft need navigational lights in outer space? That’s ridiculous since space is so vast, there is no need to avoid collisions with other spacecraft using them.

(6) Isn’t it extremely improbable that aliens exist in the first place in our Galaxy? And don’t “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”? (Carl Sagan’s ECREE edict)

(7) If UFOs are real, then why don’t commercial airline pilots report them, not just military, and why don’t astronomers whose job it is to monitor the sky frequently see them too?

(8) Why has SETI not (yet) succeeded if “they” are out there?

(9) Speaking of artifacts, if we have crash parts, why haven’t we reverse-engineered them?

(10) OK, maybe *some* UAP are advanced craft, BUT they’re manmade: perhaps black ops?

(11) Maybe UAP are Russian or Chinese?

(12) Aren’t eyewitnesses unreliable? Countless studies have shown this to be factually true.

(13) There are no peer-reviewed scientific publications in high-impact journals on UAP so it is all garbage, QED. Harrumph, harrumph.
Excerpts from the conclusions:
External Quote:
But we must differentiate between a skeptic and a debunker: good scientists should always be skeptical and stand up for scientific truth, but never attempt to rewrite facts to suit our own comfy worldview when we find them challenging.

That being said, I am certainly not going to sit here and tell you that we have definitive evidence of “alien spacecraft” operating in Earth’s atmosphere. But I will tell you that we have definitive evidence that “The Phenomenon,” whatever it is, is real and worth studying.
Last edited:
if the thread is to focus on the article, maybe move to "Open Discussion"?
You beat me to the list. Do we want 13 seperate threads, or one Open Discussion thread to talk about the various claims? I'd opt for a OP thread and just tackle the whole article. I've read part of it and I'll note some of his evidence is from Chris Mellon and Eric Davis of Skinwalker fame along with a quote from Hal Puthoff.

And there is this line where the author talks about his appearance in the A Tear In the Sky and on the History channel:

External Quote:
...there is a scene in a recent documentary by Caroline Cory, A Tear in the Sky [51], in which I referred to the specific episode of the History Channel show Unidentified about newly declassified documents which refer to 50-ft. flying white butane tanks in the 1940s and 50s.
Issues with that film are discussed here:
Not open for further replies.