UAP Files: “UFOs: Wikipedia, AI, and the Rise of Fake Experts” video and Substack Article

[Montauk]

7 hours ago, UAP commentator (and one time member of this forum) UAP Files just published a "special" episode of their podcast of the same name. It's entitled "UFOs: Wikipedia, AI, and the Rise of Fake Experts". It appears to be a polemic against this forum and West's occasional use of Grok and/or ChatGPT for gathering information while discussing topics on X.

Here is the video:


Source: https://youtu.be/039GcOiTv1c


And here is it's description:

Are anonymous online debunkers and forums like Metabunk quietly becoming the "official truth" — even over military pilots, scientists, and peer-reviewed research? In this video, I put Mick West's Metabunk to the test…and they failed. This isn't about attacking Mick West personally. This is about a growing problem: anonymous, unqualified forum users being treated as factual authorities by Wikipedia, Community Notes, journalists, and even AI models like ChatGPT, Gemini, and Grok (with its new "Grokapedia").

For years we've heard:
"Don't feed the trolls."
"Don't engage with debunkers — you'll never change their mind."

But it's no longer just about opinions on a forum.

It's now about who gets to write history.

When AI learns from Wikipedia and Wikipedia cites Metabunk… opinions become "facts."

When anonymous users outrank pilots, scientists, or peer-reviewed research…something is broken.

In this video I show:

How Metabunk's analysis failed a simple test
Why layperson debunkers are being cited as "expert sources"
Why this affects AI, UFO history, and future generations
What Dr. Gary Nolan and others have to say about this issue
Why "sunlight is the best disinfectant" - now more than ever

I'm not an "expert." I'm just a researcher who's seen more UFO footage than most - and that's the point. None of us should be treated as absolute truth. Not me. Not Metabunk. Not anonymous avatars.

This is a warning - and a call for transparency. If you care about truth, history, and how Al is being trained - please watch, share, and discuss.

Let's make sure the next generation inherits facts, not forum opinions.

The video was published concurrently with this Substack article:

https://open.substack.com/pub/uapf/p/when-debunkers-become-historians

If this like is any of this guy's other work, it's likely to contain ad hominem, claiming West does things that they themselves actually do, cherry picking….the whole enchilada.

I'm curious to hear your thoughts on this.

 

[jarlrmai]

If only there were some way anyone could come on these fora and post the real answers, but alas.

 

[FatPhil]

First they ignore you.
Then they laugh at you.
Then they fight you.
Then you win.

 

[flarkey]

To be fair to @UAPF this kind of response is to be expected after we have successfully debunked so many of his videos. I've been collecting these in my own sub-reddit - https://www.reddit.com/r/UAP_Files_Debunks/ ...

1. https://www.metabunk.org/threads/melinda-messengers-large-golden-orbs-flares.14421
2. https://www.metabunk.org/threads/aliens-vs-golf-carts-denbigh-ufo-analysis.10546/post-349788
3. https://www.metabunk.org/threads/f35-vs-flies.14355/
4. https://www.metabunk.org/threads/uap-files-orb-videos-mostly-iss.13676/post-324545
5. https://www.metabunk.org/threads/uap-files-orb-videos-mostly-iss.13676/post-341561
6. https://www.metabunk.org/threads/uap-files-orb-videos-mostly-iss.13676/post-324356
7. https://www.metabunk.org/threads/uap-files-orb-videos-mostly-iss.13676/post-323330
8. https://www.metabunk.org/threads/orb-uap-tasmania-uap-files-podcast-tumbling-satellite.14074/
9. https://www.metabunk.org/threads/uap-files-orb-videos-mostly-iss.13676/post-323414
10. https://www.metabunk.org/threads/uap-files-orb-videos-mostly-iss.13676/post-324909
11. https://www.metabunk.org/threads/the-tape-the-most-important-case-yet-a-uap-files-film.14043/
12. https://www.metabunk.org/threads/pilot-sees-multiple-lights-from-aircraft-uap-files-podcast.13650/
13. https://www.metabunk.org/threads/uap-files-orb-videos-mostly-iss.13676/post-324923
14. https://www.metabunk.org/threads/orbs-airline-pilots-footage-over-china-uap-files-podcast.14012/

 

[MapperGuy]

The video was published concurrently with this Substack article:

https://open.substack.com/pub/uapf/p/when-debunkers-become-historians

Looking at the article it quotes Garry Nolan as saying:
"Second, if they have an ACTUAL problem with the data-- go through the results, formulate a non-AI enerated paper, get it peer reviewed and have the discussion in in an appropriate forum"

This is, I would contend, nonsense. Not every problem requires that level of response. Identifying that claimed UFO in someones video as a particular airplane landing at a nearby airport does not need that level of response.

The degree of certainty for accepting "Its an airplane" is not the same as proving Fermats Lost Theorem.

Will he require that level of research for every UFO believers claim? Or will he let them off the hook because they are "just asking questions". Or because they have 'secret' evidence they can't release yet because they haven't published their book latest book yet?

 

[Mick West]

West's occasional use of Grok and/or ChatGPT for gathering information while discussing topics on X.

Yeah, that's my fault. I just asked Gork to summarize one of the Palomar threads, and I offered it up as a rebuttal of the assertion that Metabunk was ignoring the topic. Of course, the summary contained errors, and they pounced on that as some evidence of my lack of rigor.

 

[RobertBillyBob]

Looking at the article it quotes Garry Nolan as saying:
"Second, if they have an ACTUAL problem with the data-- go through the results, formulate a non-AI enerated paper, get it peer reviewed and have the discussion in in an appropriate forum"

This is, I would contend, nonsense. Not every problem requires that level of response. Identifying that claimed UFO in someones video as a particular airplane landing at a nearby airport does not need that level of response.

The degree of certainty for accepting "Its an airplane" is not the same as proving Fermats Lost Theorem.

Will he require that level of research for every UFO believers claim? Or will he let them off the hook because they are "just asking questions". Or because they have 'secret' evidence they can't release yet because they haven't published their book latest book yet?

Even if there was a potential paper somewhere in metabunk's work it is not reasonable to ask for a peer reviewed paper. We are doing this in our spare time without any funding. (Unless redditers are right and everyone here but me are paid shills.) We don't have the resources needed.

 

[Mendel]

https://uapf.substack.com/p/when-debunkers-become-historians?triedRedirect=true

And the debunkers - many of whom are anonymous, unqualified and quite possibly wearing dressing gowns indoors at 3pm

treated as authoritative sources on UFOs. Not because they're pilots, scientists, or hold doctorates in astrophysics, but because they've got time, opinions and Wi-Fi.

Why are their opinions treated as more valid than those of trained pilots or scientists?

We have evidence and facts that we base our opinions on, and they're transparently shown on the forum. Evidence is more important than opinion, a distinction that @UAPF doesn't seem to share.

In this context, it's also notable how hard it often is to gather the factual circumstances of a UFO report from the people who amplify it on social media and elsewhere. People who are keen on evidence over "authority" don't act like this.

To illustrate the point, I ran a little experiment. I took a clip from an old mini-documentary I made - nothing flashy, no CGI aliens — and presented it in a way that would test the critical thinking of the Metabunk crowd. The result? They missed the point entirely (video linked at the end of the article). They confidently, publicly got it wrong. And not in a charming, "oh dear, wrong answer on a pub quiz" way. More in a "this is now being repeated online as fact" way.

Which thread is he referring to?

 

[jarlrmai]

Which thread is he referring to?

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/the-tape-the-most-important-case-yet-a-uap-files-film.14043/

 

[Mendel]

I just asked Gork

that is a much better name for it

 

[Mendel]

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/the-tape-the-most-important-case-yet-a-uap-files-film.14043/

Oh, right, the year 2000 sighting captured on Video8 and twice converted, where he only released a short clip that @flarkey identified as showing Venus, and then released another clip showing a streetlamp and triumphantly proclaimed that we had messed up.

Once this work has been completed, the entirety of the 3 days of footage (over 2hrs) will be released in the highest resolution possible on this YouTube channel so you can complete your own analysis and document the event for historical records and reference.

Has he ever done that? Like, a dropbox version of the best scan of the tape, and the full witness statements? Disclosure now!

Here'a a digest of the thread, for our readers to judge for themselves how we did.

Spoiler: Quotes from that thread

You can click on the link at the top of any quote to go directly to that post.

I agree with [them] on one thing, though: "the footage speaks for itself". Yes, and what it's saying is that it's extremely poor quality evidence of anything, indistinguishable from entirely mundane things that are out of focus, and therefore almost certainly something entirely mundane and out of focus.

It would appear that the constantly variable time, not to mention the seasons, coupled with the uncertainty as where Mr. Fawcett was actually pointing his camera and the fact that this is likely a 2nd generation analog copy that was digitized, means the object can always elude any prosaic explanation. Whatever time and location confirm something like Venus, is obviously the wrong time and location.

100% this. It works both ways when trying to identify UFOs from poor data. The lack of detail or accuracy in the data can always be used to support the argument for the anomalous or the prosaic explanations. Obviously the rational thing to do is side with the prosaic until there is any evidence to support the extraordinary explanation, but as we've seen recently UFO-fans and media have a tendancy to jump to the anomalous.

Now that Mick has introduced to Sitrec to ability to import 3d buildings, we can now see how Venus would have looked over the shed at the bottom of the Garden.

View from the video:

View from Sitrec:

Bedroom view.

I think @flarkey's nailed it pretty convincingly.
It seems likely Richard Fawcett was, on at least one occasion filming Venus and yet thought it to be something unusual- a planet which is commonly the brightest object, other than the Moon, in our night skies.

UAPFiles posted a second video that showed different footage.

I agree with Jimmy, that light isn't Venus. The light in that position isnt even above the tree line. It could be anything close to the horizon or on the hills to the north west of the house. We should note that up until this point only @UAPF has has access to the full footage and so hasn't been fully assessed by anyone but him and his chum Peter Osbourne.

It still doesn't change the conclusion that the first light seen in the video - the orb above the garden shed - is Venus.

The assumption that it is the same light (and therefore it is assumed that it is the same object) is seen throughout the video is used to 'prove' that the light can't be Venus. But as has been shown before - one 'orb' looks just like the next 'orb'. The video seems to be cut between different dates, there is no accurate time (other than possibly the time of 23.20 which is said by the witness during the video). The date on the video overlay shows 28 December, but we are told the video is across three nights on 15-17 December. So it has not been shown that the 'static' orb is the same as the one seen above the shed.

So to go back to @UAPF claim that "This UFO Footage CANNOT Be Explained…" i think I now agree with him, but not because the lights in it are anomalous, but because it is of such poor quality that the lights are (mostly) unidentifiable. Its another a great example of the adage that UFOs live in the Low Information Zone.

Hi, just newbie here. Iv'e been following this on YT and took a few things up with Jimmy on hist first production. I don't want to rehash or provide mega lengthy stuff right now so will just go to the main point about the static light source which is the subject of many of the mins at the end. Its obv it doesn't move and its obv it doesn't represent the same as the Venus object. So I went looking for an explanation. All I found within 20mins is the bearing of view outside the back upstairs window with the camera is bang on matched with a street lamp in Rowley close just 80m away. I

The opposite position would be "defending the unknown": it'd be insisting that we don't know what something is, even as others have explained what it is. It's kinda the opposite of Occam's razor, where some convoluted explanation is preferred because it's more exciting and has aliens in it. (Unfortunately, we don't have a catchy name for that principle. Perhaps we should name it "Zondo's beard". )

With sitrec, we can reconstruct where a streetlight or Venus would have been 25 years ago, and if that matches the video, we know what it is.

 

[flarkey]

Once this work has been completed, the entirety of the 3 days of footage (over 2hrs) will be released in the highest resolution possible on this YouTube channel so you can complete your own analysis and document the event for historical records and reference.

Has he ever done that? Like, a dropbox version of the best scan of the tape, and the full witness statements? Disclosure now!

The full unedited but seemingly randomly taped over video is here. And its not 'over 2hrs' as previosuly claimed.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AG_c0Y_kprQ&t=302s

 

[Mendel]

The full unedited but seemingly randomly taped over video is here. And its not 'over 2hrs' as previously claimed.

If I was a conspiracy theorist, I'd suspect a coverup at this point.

 

[flarkey]

Here's a short transcript from the latest video, which quotes Jimmy's earlier video that rebunks the debunk. He claims to have caught us out by showing how our suggestion that the light was Venus was wrong, and that we were saying that it could only be Venus....

Source: https://youtu.be/039GcOiTv1c

But what we do know is that the moon and Venus and stars—they all move. And we know roughly how they move. And this is how we're able to debunk Venus. Here's the footage. And this is really important footage, and I'll get into why in a second, but you'll see why I held it back. We can see the timestamp to the right of the screen. We can see that roof pitch on the left. And there's Venus on Stellarium. So, yes, Venus was in the sky at roughly the right time. And as we click through the timings, we can see that by about 7:30 to 8:00 p.m., Venus is gone. To the right of the screen, we can see the object still there. Okay, agreed, we don't know the exact time, but what we have got is a roof pitch. We've got a roof pitch right here, so we know the exact location that the object was seen in. Depending on where you stood in the garden, this could change the angle slightly from west to southwest. But here's the really, really important piece of information: this footage is 58 minutes long. And if we skip through from timestamp 120 through to timestamp 218—that's 58 minutes—and the object is static in the sky. It's rotating. It's pulsing something, but it's not moving. Certainly not 14.5 to 15°, which is what Venus moves in the sky. Same with other planets, 14.5 to 15°. That object doesn't move for 58 minutes. That's science.

By the time 58 minutes passes, Venus and any planet should be long gone. So, it can't be Venus. There's just no way. It's just not possible.

But we didn't say this was Venus all the way through the video. In fact in Post #1 of the thread I specifically said that the object seen at that timecode was not Venus!

@flarkey said:

An later on @AndyC then suggests on 6 April in post #44 that the light is possibly a streetlight, which admittedly was after @UAPF's quoted video, but is part of this thread and is a long time before his latest attempt to criticise us.

In short this just shows the sloppiness of @UAPF's rebunk of the debunk. He's not read the thread and fails to understand the way we achieve consensus through crowd sourced investigations. We don't just say it - we show it. And if its wrong, someone will pick it up and correct it,

 

[Carlo]

Yeah, that's my fault. I just asked Gork to summarize one of the Palomar threads, and I offered it up as a rebuttal of the assertion that Metabunk was ignoring the topic. Of course, the summary contained errors, and they pounced on that as some evidence of my lack of rigor.

Yeah dealing with bad actors you kind of have to treat it like celebrities do sound bites. It's unfortunate that you have to think about how people will use what you say in bad faith to form a narrative that's not true.

 

[jarlrmai]

Using Grok to respond to an interlocutors use of Grok might seem at least somewhat appropriate, using it fresh is just inviting criticism.

 

[Mendel]

In short, this just shows the sloppiness of @UAPF's rebunk of the debunk. He's not read the thread and fails to understand the way we achieve consensus through crowd sourced investigations. We don't just say it - we show it. And if its wrong, someone will pick it up and correct it.

The key is evidence. It stands for itself. Our dressing gown status does not come into it.

 

[Smythe Bacchus]

@Mendel @jarlrmai I thought it would be amusing to have a back-and-forth chat with Grok referencing the YouTube video transcript. Excerpts copied below:

Jimmy's video tries to paint Metabunk as "fake experts" who misguide UAP research via amateur analysis.

The concept of "amateur debunking" (1:16–1:38) is a rhetorical shortcut, shifting focus from the substance of the analysis to the supposed lack of credentials behind it. It's classic ad hominem territory, attacking the messenger to sidestep the message, especially when Metabunk's threads emphasize evidence-based reasoning over authority.

2000 Rugeley footage:

Mundanity: The footage—static, color-shifting light (white/blue/red, likely due to diffraction)—is classic low-information UFO fare.

Sensationalism: Jimmy's "Most Important Case Yet?" and passionate tone plays to UFO disclosure hype.

Why It's Not Intriguing: Your "lights in the sky" verdict is right—it's low-quality footage hyped beyond its worth. The case is prosaic, not a disclosure bombshell.

This fits your broader critique of his straw man: Jimmy positions himself as "just a researcher" (13:05–13:09) yet elevates his withheld-footage "test" as definitive.

Rigor defines quality, not the debunker's day job. Metabunk's collaborative investigations show professionalism through transparency and self-correction, even if some users are "anonymous avatars in dressing gowns at 3 PM," as Jimmy snarks in his Substack.

 

[jarlrmai]

I'm only in my dressing gown because I was rescued from the destruction of Earth by a Vogon Constructor fleet, now excuse me I need to go listen to some poetry.

 

[Ann K]

Unless redditers are right and everyone here but me are paid shills

Not paid. I'm still waiting for my check from George Soros to arrive.

 

[John J.]

Here'a a digest of the thread, for our readers to judge for themselves how we did.

He claims to have caught us out by showing how our suggestion that the light was Venus was wrong, and that we were saying that it could only be Venus.... ...But we didn't say this was Venus all the way through the video. In fact in Post #1 of the thread I specifically said that the object seen at that timecode was not Venus!

@UAPF might have uniquely identified a fundamental weakness in our collective sort-of methodology:

When Metabunk members spend time examining claimed evidence, checking observable features against reliable exterior sources of information and posting their findings and conclusions, that possible explanation might not apply to different evidence from the same claimant that shows something different
(as established in this case by Metabunk members spending time examining claimed evidence, checking observable features against reliable exterior sources of information and posting their findings and conclusions...)

How do we get past this flaw in our model? ()
It is possible others have made this error in drawing conclusions that only explain what they're actually talking about:

Galileo: See, the four "stars" near Jupiter vary in their position to that planet, apparently moving back and forth- as if they are in fact orbiting Jupiter.
Official of the Inquisition: But I've been watching this star, and it moves as predicted. Your theory doesn't account for my observation of a different object, so it must be wrong. Yes, I realise you've got a different explanation for my example, but you're being inconsistent.
And the Office of the Holy See has heard reports that you've been seen wearing a nightshirt in the afternoon. You're a wrong'un and no mistake.

 

[JJB]

7 hours ago, UAP commentator (and one time member of this forum) UAP Files just published a "special" episode of their podcast of the same name. It's entitled "UFOs: Wikipedia, AI, and the Rise of Fake Experts". It appears to be a polemic against this forum and West's occasional use of Grok and/or ChatGPT for gathering information while discussing topics on X.

Here is the video:


Source: https://youtu.be/039GcOiTv1c


And here is it's description:



The video was published concurrently with this Substack article:

https://open.substack.com/pub/uapf/p/when-debunkers-become-historians

If this like is any of this guy's other work, it's likely to contain ad hominem, claiming West does things that they themselves actually do, cherry picking….the whole enchilada.

I'm curious to hear your thoughts on this.

That's a classic bit of rhetorical sleight of hand — painting skepticism and fact-checking as some sort of creeping authoritarian takeover of "truth." What UAP Files is doing here is reframing accountability and source-checking as censorship.


The irony, of course, is that Wikipedia and Metabunk are transparent — their posts are archived, sourced, and open to correction. Meanwhile, a podcast like UAP Files operates in the opposite direction: no peer review, no data transparency, no replicable methods, just interpretation and narrative.


The idea that "anonymous forum users" are somehow replacing "military pilots" and "scientists" is another false dichotomy. When Metabunk or any other technical forum corrects bad claims, it's not pretending to outrank anyone — it's simply showing evidence, explaining physics, optics, and data analysis in public. That's how science works. The rank or title of the person who says something doesn't make it true. The evidence does.


The whole "who gets to write history" line is particularly melodramatic, as if correcting lens flare or contrail misidentifications is rewriting the history books. What it actually is: people insisting that claims should be backed by verifiable data before they're accepted as fact.


So the supposed "failure" here isn't on Metabunk's side — it's the failure to grasp that skepticism and critical evaluation are not forms of suppression. They're the foundation of reliable knowledge.

Not even to mention that Mick even owned up when an AI summary he posted had errors (unlike some people we know who double down) — he explained it and moved on, which is exactly how a serious researcher should handle things.

 

[RTM]

Given his accusation of fake expert, does he explain how he determines if someone is a real expert?

 

[John J.]

We are doing this in our spare time without any funding. (Unless redditers are right and everyone here but me are paid shills.)

I was wondering why I hadn't seen your yacht moored at our exclusive harbour, Quay West. Must be an administrative oversight.
Your presence would be much appreciated, TBH I think the ratio of Metabunk members to conspiratorial USAF officers, Lockheed executives and holidaying Men in Black needs rebalancing (though the situation improved when the Illuminati stopped being invited, as did the penny arcade machines).
If you take up accommodation near @deirdre's cryptid safari park and refuge, remember to keep all doors and windows firmly closed at night. Sasquatches can't resist a complementary mini-bar, and the Chupacabras aren't house-trained.

 

[Mendel]

Given his accusation of fake expert, does he explain how he determines if someone is a real expert?

You can always recognize the UFO experts by their degree in UFOlogy.

So the supposed "failure" here isn't on Metabunk's side — it's the failure to grasp that skepticism and critical evaluation are not forms of suppression. They're the foundation of reliable knowledge.

We're hoping to suppress bunk and pseudoscience,
through evidence and education.

 

[sigmops]

I just asked Gork to summarize one of the Palomar threads, and I offered it up as a rebuttal of the assertion that Metabunk was ignoring the topic. Of course, the summary contained errors, and they pounced on that as some evidence of my lack of rigor.

Has metabunk ever experimented with something like a wiki in lieu of forum discussions to to summarize the fact finding here?

 

[NorCal Dave]

Looking at the article it quotes Garry Nolan as saying:
"Second, if they have an ACTUAL problem with the data-- go through the results, formulate a non-AI enerated paper, get it peer reviewed and have the discussion in in an appropriate forum"

This is, I would contend, nonsense. Not every problem requires that level of response. Identifying that claimed UFO in someones video as a particular airplane landing at a nearby airport does not need that level of response.

The degree of certainty for accepting "Its an airplane" is not the same as proving Fermats Lost Theorem.

Will he require that level of research for every UFO believers claim? Or will he let them off the hook because they are "just asking questions". Or because they have 'secret' evidence they can't release yet because they haven't published their book latest book yet?

I think this is the result of a real push in the last few years to get UFO/UAP papers published. Anywhere. Sometimes they are disguised as serious technical papers, such as Vallee and Nolan's own:

"Improved instrumental techniques, including isotopic analysis, applicable to the characterization of unusual materials with potential relevance to aerospace forensics."
Garry P. Nolan, Jacques F. Vallee, Sizun Jiang and Larry G. Lemke, published in Progress in Aerospace Sciences Vol. 128, 1 January 2022;

In reality it's a paper about a supposed UFO encounter. There is the paper by 2 Harvard professors about hidden aliens:

The cryptoterrestrial hypothesis: A case for scientific openness to a concealed earthly explanation for Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena
https://www.researchgate.net/public...lanation_for_Unidentified_Anomalous_Phenomena

This is a more openly titled one:

The New Science of Unidentified Aerospace-Undersea Phenomena

Importantly in the above mentioned paper is the exhaustive list of coauthors, including not just previously published academics like Nolan and Vallee, but also assorted UFO hunters like the Tedesco brothers and UFO conference regulars like Richard Dolen.

In effect, these UFO folks have been elevated above a former game coder like Mick and other nobodies on Metabunk because they have been "published". To be fair, the above paper is NOT in any kind of peer reviewed paper, but that's kinda beside the point. They are co-authors of a "published" paper about UFOs. Nobody on Metabunk is.

Not to quote myself, but this follow on from @Giddierone from the stealth aliens paper thread summed it up:

As @Giddierone suggested in the afore mentioned thread about pareidolia, this paper may be part of a larger effort by UFOlogist to publish as many papers as possible in various journals in an attempt to legitimize UAP/UFO studies. Something akin to the "Teach the Controversy" ploy used by creationists here in the US back in the '90s. The creationists logic was "If evolution cannot be totally and completely proven, then there is room for other theories like Intelligent Design". Of course, Intelligent Design actually meant the God of the Bible. Here it seems to be, "If each and every UAP cannot be proven to be prosaic, then there's room for other non-prosaic explanations." We're not saying it's aliens, but it's aliens.

Now is the next step, Having published papers about UFOs, they can now hand wave away any debunk of any claim as just the ramblings of anonymous people on a "3rd rate Facebook"- Nolan, if it isn't published. All debunks must now be in the form of peer reviewed published papers.

Nevermind that none of the claims are presented that way. It's a 1 way street.

Nolan and Vallee's paper on a supposed UFO crash in Iowa improved techniques discussed in this thread:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/is...vallee-jiang-lemke-2022-a-useful-paper.13286/

Thread on stealth aliens hiding in Alaska and other places:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/cl...on-the-dark-side-of-the-moon-or-alaska.13504/

Paper about the "New Science of UAP", which is just a rehash of the old science of UAP with lots of co-authors contributing nothing is discussed here:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/new-science-of-uap-paper.14041/

 

[sigmops]

Now is the next step, Having published papers about UFOs, they can now hand wave away any debunk of any claim

Is there no way to evaluate the quality and thoroughness of a peer review? Surely they are not all created equal.

Being able to reference a peer review is basically a use of the "appeal to authority" fallacy but used validly.

In the case of Villarroel's transients there are multiple peer reviewed papers forming a supporting structure. Its not clear to me how, but they seem to depend on one another in a difficult to piece together way. From the standpoint of peer reviewing the new ones, it doesn't seem possible without peer reviewing the previous papers, which becomes an increasingly herculean task that I doubt any peer review outside of a top journal like Nature would spend the expense of time to do.

Of course one of the latest papers up for discussion is the "Transients in the Palomar [...]" which is published in the 'peer reviewed' journal Scientific Reports(SR). SR is published by Nature's parent publisher Nature Portfolio. The marketing on their website makes it sound like SR gets the same peer review process as Nature. Wikipedia says SR is the largest journal by metric of number of papers published but surely this implies that each paper cannot receive the same level of peer review scrutiny as the journal called Nature.

How is this challenged? Of course if the science and conclusions in these papers are sound, there is no need to counter it

 

[deirdre]

remember to keep all doors and windows firmly closed at night. Sasquatches can't resist a complementary mini-bar,

you do realize they can open doors and slide window sashes up right? If you meant "locked", that wont help either as i offered a lock picking seminar this summer since i read on Metabunk that guys like "lock picking" as a hobby.

and yes i hired a lock picking EXPERT. he doesnt have a certificate or school degree, but he's been picking locks [dont ask for details!] for 35+ years, so i consider him an expert.

To be fair, the above paper is NOT in any kind of peer reviewed paper, but that's kinda beside the point. They are co-authors of a "published" paper about UFOs. Nobody on Metabunk is.

Mick publishes all the time. In magazines (?) and he wrote a book.

 

[NoParty]

I have long aspired to earn and add the lofty title of "UAP Researcher" to my curriculum vitae.


There.

 

[NorCal Dave]

I have long aspired to earn and add the lofty title of "UAP Researcher" to my curriculum vitae.


There.

That would look good on my CV. Assuming I had a need for a CV.

But really, that's what many of us are here, each in their own way. Some are really good at using SitRec, star charts and ADS-B logs. Others are good at reading through the accounts and papers or listening through YouTube presentations. But we're all "researching UAP" and in a sense, we're all peer reviewing each other's work. It's all public and transparent.

The UFO crowd is sorta hiding behind the skirts of a few legit academics like Nolan, Loeb or Knuth and saying "See, we do proper research and get peer reviewed", when in reality the vast majority of them are the same dip-shits as us. Just everyday people interested in UFOs for various reasons. As has been pointed out on this forum repeatedly, there is no such thing as a UFO expert, because UFOs are by definition "unexplained". One can't be an expert in something unknown.

EDIT: corrected misspelled names.

 

[John J.]

I have long aspired to earn and add the lofty title of "UAP Researcher" to my curriculum vitae.

We could be Doctors Of New UFO Technology, proudly writing "DONUT" after our names.

 

[Montauk]

Here are some comments that have been left on the video that I found interesting/amusing:

@Robinhood1966

Perception management of prescribed narratives are what is paramount to CFI, CSI and GSoW debunkers. Any facts to the contrary, are discredited in the court of public opinion. Is in part why several including Mick are trained in slight of hand illusionist methods. Magic tricks. James Randi set the standard for deception perception amongst skeptic tool kits.

@ScottLarrieu

It used to be that people who tended to see a Bogeyman behind every suspicious event in politics were laughable. Now it's more likely that you are considered a fool if you can't see beyond the duplicity in every action a politician takes. Sadly the truth is that nothing has really changed about people's political agendas, it's just that the curtain has been pulled back completely to reveal Dorothy's worst nightmare. The world has become an endless hurricane, the sky is full of flying monkeys and at any moment a house could come down on your head. Welcome to the new world, written by ChatGPT and illustrated in over-saturated colors by quantum AI.

@DomFurlong

The truth is always opinion, the opinion of who shouts loudest, ufology is just another form of politics. The only way of proving an incident is by doing your own individual boots on the ground research, Calvine is a classic example of this.

@butterfingers1967

You can't tell someone something about aliens if they don't want to know about it,all you are doing is wasting your time on them. Personally I think people that don't believe UFOs and aliens are real don't want to believe because they can't comprehend it,it's too reality shattering for them to handle. NPCs is what they are.

@stampylove

Shit loads of big voices who've never had any contact all vying for a piece of the action. Lots of bad actors.

@muzmason3064

Ive [sic] been reading, watching, learning aviation [sic] for 55 years Ai is nearly always inaccurate where aviation is concerned. No matter what these objects are because we are about 30 years behind with secret stuff we may never know or be told. Im pretty sure they are not man made in general, there are things that are skunkworks and the like are always busy. A.I. will tell us nothing nor will the people with the knowledge.

@UFOsAreAngelsandDemons, replying to @muzmason3064

My brother works at the forefront of AI. He says they always have to fix the coding and it's plateaued and they can't see it getting better anytime soon and taking over the world like all these invested doom mongers claim.

@josephrendon6969

Serial skeptics and debunkers have a long, rich celebrated history, with traditions reaching far back across the centuries. Except is, I can't recall one bloody name at the moment…

@torontotonto33

The Venus excuse was used for the 1991 Mexico eclipse sighting where numerous videos were caught of a silver disk like object in the sky. One of the striking things about them was the black shadow underneath it. Love to see you do an analysis of that one.

@gordonmeeks2447

"Flarkey"? Really? How bout flakey or flaky or snarky or farky or farty or spanky or sharky or malarky or debunky or flunky or stinky or skanky or...?????

@flarkey, I personally think you should've went with @farty.

@strangerthanfiction-tom

let mick west debunk the footage red panda koala posted from the governor of mexico. orbs flying around his ranch.

@UAPFilesPodcast, replying to @strangerthanfiction-tom

I did see that one. It's very interesting. I want to run a few AI test [sic] before sharing, but it's definitely a powerful piece of footage.

I believe these last two comments are referring to this tweet from RPK:

Source: https://x.com/RedPandaKoala/status/1982040226341278069

 

[JMartJr]

We could be Doctors Of New UFO Technology, proudly writing "DONUT" after our names.

"Always pick your acronym first."
--- Famous and important kite flier, co-founder of the Wings Across Carolina Kiting and Okra Society

 

[deirdre]

I believe these last two comments are referring to this tweet from RPK:

here's his FB page with more videos. noone thinks ufos really, most say witches or lightning/natural*.. although as one user points out 'why are the black and white videos at end having orange balls in them? (and the dogs and cats sounding like they are in heat in every single clip is a bit much, imo)

*of course there are over 1000 comments so i didnt read all obviously.

(we definitely need more witches and less UFOs.)



Source: https://www.facebook.com/reel/749778961426799

 

[MapperGuy]

here's his FB page with more videos. noone thinks ufos really, most say witches or lightning/natural*.. although as one user points out 'why are the black and white videos at end having orange balls in them? (and the dogs and cats sounding like they are in heat in every single clip is a bit much, imo)

*of course there are over 1000 comments so i didnt read all obviously.

(we definitely need more witches and less UFOs.)



Source: https://www.facebook.com/reel/749778961426799

I can't translate the text in the facebook reel, so I am not sure what is being claimed.
But I watched the thing several times, looking not at the moving orbs, but at the small details away from them. My impression is these are not being shown at real speed, but parts at least are sped up. Maybe they say there somewhere, I don't know. But looking away from the center of attention can sometimes reveal small changes that flicker back and forth, in what are other wise are very static scenes. No moving clouds, stars, people, etc.

 

[Ann K]

"Always pick your acronym first."
--- Famous and important kite flier, co-founder of the Wings Across Carolina Kiting and Okra Society

My boss got upset when there was a suggestion that our new combined group should be called Fundamental And Research Technology...

 

[Kyle Ferriter]

I believe these last two comments are referring to this tweet from RPK:

here's his FB page with more videos. noone thinks ufos really, most say witches or lightning/natural*.. although as one user points out 'why are the black and white videos at end having orange balls in them? (and the dogs and cats sounding like they are in heat in every single clip is a bit much, imo)

*of course there are over 1000 comments so i didnt read all obviously.

(we definitely need more witches and less UFOs.)

This caption says he was sent this video from someone else. Which suggests he is not the source of the videos. It does say "the ranch" but I'm not sure if this implies a ranch he owns. Google Maps suggests that Icamole, Nueva Leon, Mexico is a very small town and only has one thing labeled as a "ranch" in the town limits (though this may not be reliable)

¿Raza, me mandaron este video, qué se hace en estos casos?
¿Alguien que sepa de estos asuntos? Que anda muy cerca del rancho en Icamole.
¿Será prudente invitarle unas caguamas? Espero sus consejos
(translated)
Guys, they sent me this video, what do you do in these situations?
Anyone who knows about these kinds of things? It's really close to the ranch in Icamole.
Would it be wise to invite it for some beers? I await your advice

Does raise the possibility that he was sent them from a hoaxer or someone using CGI to replicate something else that they saw. I was going to suggest maybe someone messing around with fireworks or a flare gun but in a couple of the clips look like they're moving laterally too close to the ground.

 

[Smythe Bacchus]

the dogs and cats sounding like they are in heat in every single clip is a bit much, imo

My impression is these are not being shown at real speed, but parts at least are sped up.

Does raise the possibility that he was sent them from a hoaxer or someone using CGI to replicate something else that they saw.

This footage is easy to fake:

1. The light sources could be just about anything that emits omnidirectional light, like a tiki torch or similar item being walked through the scene and/or thrown in the air. Mist or vegetation is easily exploited to diffuse the light to make it look more mysterious.

2. The recorded video of an otherwise still scene is simple to speed up and multiplex with a separate audio source, like a combination of random animal sounds, to create ambiance for the scene, and imply the "animals" are somehow being disturbed by the "UAPs".

No CGI would be required.

 

[Giddierone]

I think this is the result of a real push in the last few years to get UFO/UAP papers published. Anywhere. Sometimes they are disguised as serious technical papers, such as Vallee and Nolan's own:

"Improved instrumental techniques, including isotopic analysis, applicable to the characterization of unusual materials with potential relevance to aerospace forensics."
Garry P. Nolan, Jacques F. Vallee, Sizun Jiang and Larry G. Lemke, published in Progress in Aerospace Sciences Vol. 128, 1 January 2022;

In reality it's a paper about a supposed UFO encounter. There is the paper by 2 Harvard professors about hidden aliens:

The cryptoterrestrial hypothesis: A case for scientific openness to a concealed earthly explanation for Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena
https://www.researchgate.net/public...lanation_for_Unidentified_Anomalous_Phenomena

This is a more openly titled one:

The New Science of Unidentified Aerospace-Undersea Phenomena

Importantly in the above mentioned paper is the exhaustive list of coauthors, including not just previously published academics like Nolan and Vallee, but also assorted UFO hunters like the Tedesco brothers and UFO conference regulars like Richard Dolen.

In effect, these UFO folks have been elevated above a former game coder like Mick and other nobodies on Metabunk because they have been "published". To be fair, the above paper is NOT in any kind of peer reviewed paper, but that's kinda beside the point. They are co-authors of a "published" paper about UFOs. Nobody on Metabunk is.

Not to quote myself, but this follow on from @Giddierone from the stealth aliens paper thread summed it up:



Now is the next step, Having published papers about UFOs, they can now hand wave away any debunk of any claim as just the ramblings of anonymous people on a "3rd rate Facebook"- Nolan, if it isn't published. All debunks must now be in the form of peer reviewed published papers.

Nevermind that none of the claims are presented that way. It's a 1 way street.

Nolan and Vallee's paper on a supposed UFO crash in Iowa improved techniques discussed in this thread:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/is...vallee-jiang-lemke-2022-a-useful-paper.13286/

Thread on stealth aliens hiding in Alaska and other places:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/cl...on-the-dark-side-of-the-moon-or-alaska.13504/

Paper about the "New Science of UAP", which is just a rehash of the old science of UAP with lots of co-authors contributing nothing is discussed here:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/new-science-of-uap-paper.14041/

It's funny that Nolan remarks that critics should "formulate a non-AI generated paper" - yet the Sol Foundation "white papers" have all the hallmarks of being AI generated themselves.