Attack or Ignore??

[TClaeys]

I think a lot of us find ourselves reading and hearing about some ridiculous stories. Serpa, Altimarians, Earth-human exchange, space brothers, Meier, Dr Golberg, Greer, etc, etc, etc. And many of these people are so adamantly rigid with their views that no one can oppose them, or so they think. Any rational debunking or even skeptical thought is completetly rejected and denied with all sorts of supposed rational. (ie must be a gov't secret agent, disinformation, can't accept the "truth", etc)

So the question comes to me whether it is even useful at all to attack these deluded parties. What does everyone think here? Is it more useful to debunk these people or to completely ignore them??

When I hear garbage spew from these people I have an emotional response that says to attack, debunk, and criticize the nature of their "work". But in the end, any reasonable rational person knows that this stuff is utter hogwash. And the people that don't, .... well we can't help them anyway.

So to get somewhere that is closer to the actual truth, it is probably more worthy of simply ignoring these people. Yet somehow their story makes the rounds again and again. And as it does it angers us, well at least me. And I have a hard time just ignoring the stories as stupid as they may be. I mean, they do deserve some debunking, but what a waste of time. Should we just leave that to the hardcore skeptics which tend to only take the easy cases anyway?? Or spend the time and effort to destroy a case we know is already complete bunk? Or just ignore them altogether and move on to more potentially valid cases?

I suppose this is a bit of a rant post but I just tire easily of these things. I mean often times I'm looking at a blurry photo of a bird and it is being touted as this enigmatic object that wasn't seen when the photo was taken. And then all sorts of "experts" mention how strange the picture is and that there are possible vortexes involved and other moronic discussion. And again, I spend the time to post a comment saying this is a freakin BIRD you idiots. It makes me feel better, sort of, but accomplishes nothing. What do you guys and girls do here??

 

[fitzbew88]

...is [it] even useful at all to attack these deluded parties. What does everyone think here? Is it more useful to debunk these people or to completely ignore them??

My opinion: ignore.

No profit in the contest.

I have struggled with this question too.

 

[valiens]

I was ignoring. Now I'm attacking. If UFO Magazine has the balls to publish my next piece, kudos to them.

I think it depends on how much traction the hoaxer/hoax has, though, and where. I mean if it's not getting any press, ignore it. If it's building up steam, take it out--provided that you're taking it out in front of a crowd that isn't the choir. The choir already knows. It's the new people foreign to all of this stuff that concern me.

 

[Michael L.]

I ignore because who gives a #@*& what I think? Seriously... if someone asked me point blank, "Despite my belief in intelligently controlled UFOs, I really have trouble with X because..." Part of why people will rally to defend some ridiculous crap is because they initially believe it, often after only an introduction to an individual's claims, but are then subjected to a refuting of X's claims that also feels like an attack on anyone who believes it. Many people are unnecessarily aggressive in dismissing these things and it backs people into a corner where they can only defend crazy theory X or admit they were stupid.

That does not prevent me from calling anyone I feel is a conman a conman or a straight up lunatic anything less than such, I just try to be conscience of the fact that many people are not as aware of certain facts as I may be. Since I became interested in all of this weirdness as a kid, so I can't say that I never bought the Meier story cause at age 10 or 11 I probably did. (I can say that I never though Bob Lazar seemed legit....) Point is, if you are going to attack, attack the person behind the lies, not those who are naive enough to believe them. That will not help them see the truth.

 

[jritzmann]

Take the advice of a fool. Ignore it. Say what you have to say, and then be done.

In the end, debunking these pathetic morons does very little. Who exactly are you presenting the debunk to? Hard line believers of the fakes? You're not going to convince anyone there. Those with a modicum of intelligence see it for what it is already. So really, whats the point. The hard line believers eventually move onto the next "Ooooh, ahhhh" thing and the main audience is gone.

In the end, you're not going to stop any of these people by debunking them. Calling attention to half of them is just what they want.

Say what you have to....then I say let em starve.

 

[jritzmann]

It's the new people foreign to all of this stuff that concern me.

I used to say the same thing. However if they're missing the *simple* common sense to look for themselves, they deserve what they get. Who cares.

 

[Siani]

If something is obviously ridiculous, and hardly anyone gives it any credence, I ignore it. However, if people are getting duped, and possibly scared half to death, by something that is demonstrably untrue, I go into attack mode. As Valiens hints, people new to this subject may need a little help from more seasoned students.

The UFO subject is far too important to allow hoaxers, bullshit merchants and the delusional to muddy the already very murky waters, without challenge. If the more preposterous elements of this subject are challenged and outlawed, maybe, just maybe, this subject may, one day, get treated by the mainstream media with the objectivity and respect it deserves. When we have the likes of Boylan, Horn, Greer, and a few choice others, poisoning those murky waters with unfettered bullshit, there is no chance of the UFO issue ever being taken seriously by the world at large. And, for all we know, failure to take the issue seriously could be one of humankind's greatest mistakes.

 

[valiens]

It's the new people foreign to all of this stuff that concern me.

I used to say the same thing. However if they're missing the *simple* common sense to look for themselves, they deserve what they get. Who cares.

True. But what about when they read UFO Magazine as a means of looking into it for themselves and some of the info by people they assume must know something (because they're writing for UFO) is completely bogus?

 

[Graphimancer]

And, for all we know, failure to take the issue seriously could be one of humankind's greatest mistakes.

One of the many. To be honest, my expectations for our long-term survival are pretty grim. My only consolation is that, while our extinction means a lot to us, overall the universe won't give a tinker's damn and is probably better off without us. Even the earth will eventually heal and probably host lots of other lifeforms and maybe cultures.

(Sorry if this sounds dire, but being a student of history doesn't do a lot to convince me that we've ever really changed.)

Back on topic, new people to the field will have to learn to make their own distinctions between bullshit and serious work. We can't do that for them.

 

[icculus]

I hear you. I cringe when I see people like Linda Howe regurgitate the drone story. These people have to be taken down.

Where do I sign up?

 

[jritzmann]

True. But what about when they read UFO Magazine as a means of looking into it for themselves and some of the info by people they assume must know something (because they're writing for UFO) is completely bogus?

Again, you say what you have to say, then leave it. Otherwise it consumes your time constantly fighting the nonsense (because more always comes). I'm not saying to remain silent. Oh no. Let them have it. Then, be done. Walk.

Like Hynek said, stay away from the lunatic fringe or you get painted with the same brush.

Hey, at least no one prints in the magazine their desire to see *you* turn purple. Right?

 

[Seth]

I am with Ritzmann on this one:

Intelligent individuals have the obligation to right the conversation with truth wherever/whenever it can be found. Say your piece with supporting evidence and be done with the lunatics. Those with sense will follow the trail of logic. Those who chose to live a tangential perspective are free to do so but I do not include them in my network of critical thinkers.

 

[The Pair of Cats]

True. But what about when they read UFO Magazine as a means of looking into it for themselves and some of the info by people they assume must know something (because they're writing for UFO) is completely bogus?

If you automatically assume anyone who writes for any magazine knows what they are talking you are asking for trouble. (assume=making an ASS out of U & ME!)
You can't live your life for other people. If they are smart they will look at the genre as a whole and decipher for themselves who is bogus and who is not. If, as Jeff says, they are too stupid to work it out, then they are fools.

 

[Graphimancer]

Intelligent individuals have the obligation to right the conversation with truth wherever/whenever it can be found. Say your piece with supporting evidence and be done with the lunatics. Those with sense will follow the trail of logic. Those who chose to live a tangential perspective are free to do so but I do not include them in my network of critical thinkers.

This is quite subjective, though. Zealots and lunatics feel the same way, and feel it's their obligation to "right the conversation with truth" too.

Greer seems to believe his stuff, however bizarre it sounds. He may be completely justified in his mind, and to him we are the ones who are wrong.

I guess my point is don't fight zeolotry with zealotry. It's better to pick your battles wisely. It's not people's lines of thought that offend me--it's their willful denial and beloved gullibility.

 

[DanielBrenton]

So the question comes to me whether it is even useful at all to attack these deluded parties. What does everyone think here? Is it more useful to debunk these people or to completely ignore them?? ...

... I suppose this is a bit of a rant post but I just tire easily of these things. I mean often times I'm looking at a blurry photo of a bird and it is being touted as this enigmatic object that wasn't seen when the photo was taken. And then all sorts of "experts" mention how strange the picture is and that there are possible vortexes involved and other moronic discussion. And again, I spend the time to post a comment saying this is a freakin BIRD you idiots. It makes me feel better, sort of, but accomplishes nothing. What do you guys and girls do here??

I'm tending to agree with Jeff. Say your peace and get on with it because we as individuals have better things to do than sustain an ongoing battle. I think saying your peace at least gets it off your chest, and if nothing else has therapeutic value.

I'd like to chime in about the intelligence of the audience, and offer the following:

Some time ago I attended a local MUFON meeting, where a videotape was presented of a sighting that was a bit puzzling.

Some tourists visiting Las Vegas were down on the Strip when they caught sight of something odd in the sky and videotaped it. These people were curious as to what it was, and our host, being the State MUFON Director, wound up receiving a copy of the tape.

The shot, as I recall, was of the Bellagio Resort-Casino from street level at night, and a cluster of small silverish round objects appeared from behind the resort towers and drifted what appeared to be toward the southeast, climbing steadily in altitude. The objects stayed fairly closely clustered together, but did not appear to be flying in formation as such. The behavior suggested that the objects were somehow tethered together.

The state director pointed out that he had seen large, saucer-shaped balloons, up to six feet across, sometimes associated with promotional activities (such as the grand openings of stores or auto dealerships) used in the Vegas area. It seemed probable that what we were seeing could be several of these, somehow tied together, that had gotten loose.

Entirely plausible. Prosaic, but probably true.

There was one fellow in the meeting whom, on first sight of these objects, said they were "hyperdimensional spaceships." And all the way through the meeting he stuck to that.

Not balloons, not even spaceships bound by normal space time, but hyperdimensional spaceships.

This, unfortunately, is a segment of the audience, and a mentality we are dealing with.

I hear you. I cringe when I see people like Linda Howe regurgitate the drone story. These people have to be taken down.

Where do I sign up?

I think as long as there is an audience for this kind of foolishness, there will be "pied pipers" to lead them. When a certain Someone Who Shall Not Be Named offers seminars on engaging contact with flying saucers for an ungodly fee and a non-disclosure agreement as part of the package, and has people who are actually stupid enough to fork over the money and sign on the dotted line, then there is no helping the victims.

it isn't right, but there it is. I'm not suggesting we should do nothing, but as long as they have something to feed on, they will continue to thrive.

When Jeremy and I hashed out the original idea I presented for a UFO organization, I did want to try to address this, but as time went on I could see that serious study of the phenomenon has to be done as far away from this "community" as possible, but more importantly, there was a very vocal part of at least my corner of the community that attacked the idea of trying to fix the problem. The best long-term solution to the situation, as Jeremy suggested (and that I definitely agree with), is to drag the subject matter into the mainstream, which would eliminate this sort of fringe element "ghetto" mentality.

I was encouraged when one of our finest minds, Mac Tonnies, picked up the SETI.com blog gig, and he has been patently and intelligently discussing the phenomenon. (SETI.com is not affiliated with the actual SETI organization.) There are other avenues, and any and all of these should be explored.

As long as discussion of the phenomenon stays in this self-enclosed "cocoon," it will never mature and (forgive the analogue) take flight as it should.

 

[Seth]

This is quite subjective, though. Zealots and lunatics feel the same way, and feel it's their obligation to "right the conversation with truth" too.

Greer seems to believe his stuff, however bizarre it sounds. He may be completely justified in his mind, and to him we are the ones who are wrong.

I guess my point is don't fight zeolotry with zealotry. It's better to pick your battles wisely. It's not people's lines of thought that offend me--it's their willful denial and beloved gullibility.

Absolutely! I forgot to mention: one must be willing to think without bias, one must be willing to explore many facets honestly while pursuing truth, one must test and question any and all explanations.

I have no doubt fanatics “truly” believe their subject matter and cause without question (look at any religious person). The true intellectual and protagonist will eventually unearth particles of truth if the search is persistent and intensive enough.