How We Staged The Morristown UFO Hoax

[skunkape]

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/09-04-01.html<embed id="VideoPlayback" src="http://video.google.ca/googleplayer.swf?docid=4754561190713590190&hl=en&fs=true" style="width: 400px;">

 

[skunkape]

Ignore the above post. Start here.

eSkeptic: April 1st, 2009

 

[David Biedny]

Skunkape,

Fantastic post, those guys really did a number of everyone. I'd love to see the UFO Hunters episode about it, hey, Nancy, if you're reading this, does Bill or the show plan on making an announcement about this revelation?

dB

 

[ondafritz]

Way to go guys!!! Well done!

 

[AnnetteMarie]

so, this was posted April 1. The post links to an article posted April 1.

If this is still around April 2, then okay... if not, well I guess they got us, either way, non?

 

[dhatz]

Wow, another triumph of logic and science, against the dark side of superstition and false beliefs.

It's quite obvious to me now that what the ignorant public terms "UFOs" are pranks with balloons and frisbees, or Venus and the occasional swamp gas.

 

[skunkape]

Wow, another triumph of logic and science, against the dark side of superstition and false beliefs.

It's quite obvious to me now that what the ignorant public terms "UFOs" are pranks with balloons and frisbees, or Venus and the occasional swamp gas.

If some of the things I've seen were human pranks, they were playing with technology a lot more sophisticated than balloons and flares. The idea did cross my mind, though, in the never-ending process of trying to figure out what I DID see, that some well-funded agency could be playing with stuff like satellite-projected holograms and psychotronic technologies to make people think there is an alien invasion going on.

 

[David Biedny]

Wow, another triumph of logic and science, against the dark side of superstition and false beliefs.

It's quite obvious to me now that what the ignorant public terms "UFOs" are pranks with balloons and frisbees, or Venus and the occasional swamp gas.

While a large number of reported UFO sightings are likely hoaxes, there is still a percentage that are indeed UFOs - things in the air which that unidentified, and that often fly directly in the face of everything we know about physical reality. When you start treating science and logic like a religion, you're on the same slippery slope as the doe-eyed dolts, IMO.

dB

 

[dhatz]

I assumed it was obvious that I was being sarcastic in my prior post.

But let me quote from the "fantastic post" by the eSkeptic folks:

And like most other people, we had always heard about the uneducated farmer spotting an alien spaceship hovering over his farm, but we wondered if that amount of gullibility could be found in our upper-middle class hometown of Hanover, NJ, and the surrounding cities.
[snip]
Nevertheless, the flying saucer craze was born and 60 years later, despite the fact that there is still no evidence of their existence, the UFO myth is as strong today as ever, fed by cable channel shows that prop up UFO “experts” who claim to be authorities on a subject that’s on par with astrology and palm reading. These charlatans make a career by perpetuating the E.T. fairy tale and exploiting credulous people who want nothing more than a good conspiracy theory to believe in.
[snip]
This begs an important question: are UFO investigators simply charlatans looking to make a quick buck off human gullibility, or are they alarmists using bad science to back up their biased opinions that extraterrestrial life is routinely visiting our planet?
​

Btw I noticed that Frank Warren has already responded to the Newsweek blog "celebrating" the hoax Lab Notes : The Great UFO Hoax of 2009

 

[David Biedny]

dhatz,

The lack of body language in this medium sometimes makes it difficult to see the irony in the wording. Thanks for those links!

dB

 

[CapnG]

Am I the only one aggravated by this?

Don't get me wrong, I generally don't give lights-at-night cases much credence to start with and admittedly exposing/revealing hoaxes is important (giving Birnes and co a bit of come-uppance was a nice bonus). But in the end doesn't this just relegate those of us who have seen things more compelling and bizarre than "lights in the sky" back into the looney bin with the rest of the nutbars?

You guys needed to do an experiment to see if people were still gullible? REALLY? You couldn't just turn on the tv for five minutes? See that stuff they flash up there... the commercials? Those are predicated on the strength of human gullibility.

Now of course if you're a logical thinker, you understand that if something can be hoaxed it doesn't automatically follow that all such things are hoaxes. But in the case of something like this... it just burns me.

Side-note: Methinks Stephen Basset just lost.

 

[ondafritz]

Am I the only one aggravated by this?

Don't get me wrong, I generally don't give lights-at-night cases much credence to start with and admittedly exposing/revealing hoaxes is important (giving Birnes and co a bit of come-uppance was a nice bonus). But in the end doesn't this just relegate those of us who have seen things more compelling and bizarre than "lights in the sky" back into the looney bin with the rest of the nutbars?

You guys needed to do an experiment to see if people were still gullible? REALLY? You couldn't just turn on the tv for five minutes? See that stuff they flash up there... the commercials? Those are predicated on the strength of human gullibility.

Now of course if you're a logical thinker, you understand that if something can be hoaxed it doesn't automatically follow that all such things are hoaxes. But in the case of something like this... it just burns me.

Side-note: Methinks Stephen Basset just lost.

I am really not burned about this at all. Of course this is just my opinion.
I think it just shows that we all need to have a sense of humor about this sometimes. Also, and most importantly, I believe that this is a teachable moment. Teachable in the fact that this should be a lesson for serious researchers to refine their methods. Re-examine how things are done. And not take the result you want to be the first result. The result you want should always be the last result if you want the truth. Because the last result (if true) will be the same time after time after time.

 

[David Biedny]

CapnG,

I share in your frustration, but realize that it's part and parcel of dealing with a culture obsessed with entertainment. Until a large-scale, mass sighting happens within range of an HD camera and news crew, this topic will never gain any level of credibility in the mainstream media.

As far as Bassett, he lost before he even began.

dB

 

[David Biedny]

I think it just shows that we all need to have a sense of humor about this sometimes. Also, and most importantly, I believe that this is a teachable moment. Teachable in the fact that this should be a lesson for serious researchers to refine their methods. Re-examine how things are done. And not take the result you want to be the first result. The result you want should always be the last result if you want the truth. Because the last result (if true) will be the same time after time after time.

A sense of humor, perhaps, but a sense of humility, definitely.

I agree in that UFO "researchers" should realize that most of them lack any type of critical thinking, they're looking to prove a point, not discover any actual facts. UFOs are like a religious dogma for many, especially those who stand to make a few bucks from the phenomenon.

dB

 

[ondafritz]

A sense of humor, perhaps, but a sense of humility, definitely.

I agree in that UFO "researchers" should realize that most of them lack any type of critical thinking, they're looking to prove a point, not discover any actual facts. UFOs are like a religious dogma for many, especially those who stand to make a few bucks from the phenomenon.

dB

Oh yes. Well said.

 

[CapnG]

I share in your frustration, but realize that it's part and parcel of dealing with a culture obsessed with entertainment. Until a large-scale, mass sighting happens within range of an HD camera and news crew, this topic will never gain any level of credibility in the mainstream media.

Your point on entertainment is well taken but... wasn't this technically a mass sighting with cameras and news crews? Not HD mind you but still. People drew comparisons between this and the phoenix lights, right? Doesn't this now cast further dispersions on the witnesses to that incident? As it is, they make no distinction of consequence between the 8:00 triangle and 10:30 flares, now they have one more prod of ridicule to jab that episode with as well.

The reason we're here is because we like the Paracast. We like it because it's a show dedicated to narrowing the field, weeding out the crackpots and getting down to the real info, the thoughtful discussions and the realistic approaches to these topics. You and Gene have invested so much time already into trying to take the pee out of the pool put there by "UFOlogists". With this revalation, it's as if these two jokers dumped in a whole porto-potty's worth, turning the pool a greener shade of piss. I must say you're taking it remarkably well.

 

[AnnetteMarie]

oh, it's a sad night... hope on the April fool theory is fading fast

I don't think I can hold out against so many idiots and hoaxers anymore, it is soooo difficult to shore up the ramparts all by myself, out here, alone, on a limb, waving a white flag of peace amongst the brethren and sistren... (I coulda used cistern, but hey, that wouldn't hold water)...

oh, who the heck am I kidding? that was a damn nasty thing to do, BUT - I would like to see how they can use that to explain other sightings away in a backwards track. Wonder if they will take credit for the sighting in Nuremburg?

 

[David Biedny]

With this revalation, it's as if these two jokers dumped in a whole porto-potty's worth, turning the pool a greener shade of piss. I must say you're taking it remarkably well.

Well, here's the thing: as much time as I've invested in these topics in the last three years, there are many other things that occupy my mind and life, and as I get older, I'm trying to get better at prioritizing things. If I were to meet these jokers, would I tell them they were my heros? Would I cut their hands off? Neither. What they've done proves that many of the "researchers" in the field are nothing more than self-important dweebs, so in a weird way, they've potentially done something constructive. When people do and say stupid shit, it's a potential learning opportunity for those who are paying attention.

dB

 

[Gareth]

Im a little way into the article and although I can tell Im going to enjoy the pay off immensely, the hardcore science-fuckers who wrote it are already getting on my nerves.

 

[David Biedny]

Lance,

You're obviously an intelligent person, but you know what, there are many, many things that science, in it's current state, cannot explain. I've seen more than a few of these things with my own eyes, standing next to other people who were as baffled as me. When you make sweeping statements about some of these topics, you seem a little less than the intelligent person that you probably are. Scientific fundamentalists are every bit as destructive as religious fundamentalists. Take it as constructive criticism.

dB