Dec 31 2009
End of a Decade
Today is the last day of the first decade of the 21st century and third millenium. Please don’t get pedantic on me about there not being a year zero and therefore the decades begin with years ending in 1 and not 0. I know the whole story – I choose to count my decades (like most people) from 0-9. The 70s does not include 1980.
It does not seem like we have yet reached a consensus on what to call this past decade – the “aughts”, the “naughties” or what. In any case I would like to muse about science and skepticism over the last 10 years as I did about 2009 earlier this week.
Rather than consider single news items, since we are covering an entire decade I want to write about those big issues that skeptics have dealt with over the last 10 years, and sum up how I think it went. My goal is to offend as many people as possible (not really, but I often feel as if it might as well be).
9/11 Truthers
This was the decade of the 9/11 truth movement – of course because 9/11 happened in 2001. But 9/11 truth can also stand in for any big evil government conspiracy. The first half of the decade the truthers made their biggest impact, and polls at the time (polls are tricky, but taken at face value) indicate that as many as a third of Americans thought the Bush administration had something to do with 9/11.
Whether this meant it was an inside job, or they were just covering up their own incompetence is where interpretation gets tricky. But either way – many people saw Loose Change and thought that something fishy was going on.
But the skeptical movement, and some notable science outlets, like Popular Mechanics and NIST, fought back hard. We pointed out all the flaws in the arguments of the truthers – anomaly hunting for example, and countered them fact by fact. Eventually the truther movement was fairly marginalized and the general perception is that they are a bunch of conspiracy-mongering nutcases.
This is definitively a big win for the skeptical movement over the aughts. But there are still truthers (as the comment section of this post is likely to evidence). Now they seem largely to stick to the straw man that the skeptics are saying we should uncritically believe everything the government tells us about everything.
It was never about that. Be skeptical of the government all you want. But that does not mean you can weave elaborate grand conspiracy theories out of inuendo and pseudoscience.
ID/Creationism
I also put the ID/creationist crowd (or CDesign Proponentsists) in the loser column for the last decade. They lost major legal battles, like Dover. They have failed to gain any legal ground, despite desperate flailing for a strategy since their big loss at Dover. They have tried hard – going for the academic freedom gambit, but that does not seem to have any real traction.
I think the bottom line is that the scientific community simply has their number. They know how to deal with creationists now. Now creationists are just target practice for budding skeptics.
Expelled was also a big fail. It may have fired up the absolute core of the religious right, but it failed to gain any objectives for ID. It made an absolute fool of Ben Stein, and exposed the dirty tactics of ID proponents. It was good fodder to skeptics, and little more.
We have to keep an eyes on these guys – but their movement is intellectually bankrupt, and they are getting more and more desperate. I think we can easily keep them on a losing trajectory.
Alternative Medicine
This is a tough one. From one perspective the CAM movement has continued to gain ground over the last decade – not so much in usage (the numbers are actually quite flat) but in mainstreaming their propaganda. They have convinced much of the public that natural is magically better. They have successfully smeared Big Pharma and mainstream medicine. They have continued their infiltration of academia and regulation.
However, I also think they are coasting on the successes of the last decade. In the last ten years, if anything, I see more and more of a pushback against outlandish claims and the wild-west regulation that CAM advocates have been pushing for. The mainstrem media has caught on to the fact (unheard of in the 1990s) that CAM is often a SCAM.
We are starting to see more and more books like Trick or Treatment. And the British Chiropractic Associate lawsuit against Simon Singh has united the skeptical movement and large portions of the scientific community against chiropractic. That was a big fail for the BCA (even though the suit is still ongoing) and if anything just showed them to be thugs who are trying to hide their dirty little secret that there is little to no evidence for many of their claims.
Maybe the tide is turning – but this is the time to increase our efforts to protect the integrity of science in medicine. Those who are attacking science as the basis of the standard of care in medicine (for whatever motivation) are going to fight back hard. And they have established a lot of groundwork. We still have our work cut out for us, and the outcome is far from determined.
Anti-Vaccinationists
Unfortunately, the anti-vaxers have clearly had a good decade. They emerged from a fringe group to the mainstream. This can be measured by declining vaccination rates, pockets of very low vaccination, and the resurgence of previously contained vaccine-preventable diseases.
They have garnered some significant celebrity support, Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carey among them. They have successfully branded themselves as vaccine experts (which is disturbing) and have hijacked a significant portion of the autism community.
They have successfully marketed several effective slogans, like “green our vaccines”, “vaccine choice”, and “too many too soon.”
And they are pushing forward with increasing vigor and resources. It does not seem that they have yet passed their peak.
But also opposition to the anti-vaxers (the anti-anti-vax movement) is gaining steam. Ironically, over the last decade the science has been mostly against the anti-vaxers. Study after study have supported vaccine safety and soundly refuted the vaccine-autism hypothesis.
The mainstream media seems to be on our side in this one. The public is starting to realize that these anti-vaxers are dangerous and misguided. But we are right in the midst of this struggle – again a time when we have to push forward with increasing effort.
UFOlogy
This past decade the UFO movement has largely flown under the radar. In the last 50 years or so belief in UFOs has waxed and waned, and the aughts were a waning decade.
I think our digital age has something to do with it. Cameras are now ubiquitous, and yet all we get are crappy photos or videos – the smoking gun of alien spacecraft has not emerged. Also, the news cycle is so short now that when people report seeing lights in the sky, the story is still in everyone’s memory when the next day it is revealed that they were floating lanterns.
UFOs are just too quickly and easily debunked. There was also no new alien phenomenon to drive the movement – alien abductions, alien implants, crashed saucers, and big government coverups were all additions of previous decades. The past decade added nothing to the mythology – nothing to spur interest.
Perhaps we are seeing a long term waning of UFOlogy, but think it is more likely that there will be flaps in the future.
The Paranormal
Overall this was a lame decade for the paranormal. The one big winner was ghost-hunting, due entirely to the reality TV craze. Ghost hunters found their home in cheap reality TV mind candy for the masses.
But it can’t last long. Have you ever seen one of those shows? Nothing happens – they are as boring as watching snails mate. Eventually even the true-believer must be stuck with the sense that nothing is happening in these shows.You can only hunt ghosts without actually finding one for so long before people lose interest.
Other paranormal phenomena coasted over the last decade – no breakthroughs, no new sensations, all just the same old stuff. Of course there is always a new generation coming up, and the old will seem new again one day.
Conclusion
Looking back at these big topics a pattern emerges. These anti-scientific movements seem to gain a foothold – either leveraging a hot issue, a celebrity backer, or a dramatic event. Or they simply get funding and fine tune their rhetoric. They make gains for a while, but eventually their rhetoric runs out of steam. It’s hard to push a wrong idea indefinitely.
Also, with their success comes the backlash. The skeptical community is usually on the forefront of these issues (it’s what we do) but the mainstream media and the scientific community eventually get on board. And then the serious push back eventually marginalizes the pseudoscience.
They never go away entirely. We can look at past issues, like facilitated communication, as examples. The pattern seems to be the same.
The amount of time it takes can vary wildly, however, as is the damage they do in the short term. And once marginalized, such movements wait in the wings for their time to come around again.
The price of science seems to be eternal vigilance.
![[del.icio.us]](http://images.del.icio.us/static/img/delicious.small.gif){kind=small}
Print This Post
47 Responses to “End of a Decade”
Good post, Steve. One of the biggest triumphs in Skepticism, in my opinion, is the SGU and the NeuroLogica Blog. I understand you don’t want to be self-serving, but this has been one hell of a skeptical decade thanks to you. Props and Happy New Year!
This is my first time commenting here, but I wanted to expand on what Justin said. I was introduced to skepticism because of the SGU, and I can only assume there are more people like myself who are increasing the skeptic ranks. I think that’s a big win.
There is one obvious aught movement that you did not mention and may not have because people get so provoked by it -AGW
Its not so much that people think its a scam to get them to pay more taxes that irritates me, its the fact that they openly refuse to look at the thousands points of data collecting by hundreds of different sources being published for decades.
I don’t care what conspiracy theory you tightly cling to, but if you choose to attack science, attack the actual science not that plethora of straw-men you have setup.
I have a neighbor who is a NWO, anti-vax, anti-government, inside job, AGW denial nutter.
Its the fact they he refuses to read any of the scientific literature on climatology that bothers me the most-take small points of data out of context so you can continue to believe that the government shot JFK, but do yourself a favor when you attack science and actually know what it is you are attacking.
Happy belated anniversary Mr. Novella. I’ve only begun to read your blog but I’ve been a long time fan of SGU. I look forward to catching up on your past blogs, but even more so anticipate the new ones.
Great post and a lot of truth to it.
Also, good interview on the Canadian Corus Radio network this morning. I heard it and enjoyed it. I was particularly impressed that the host (on an unremitting right-leaning station) was rational and completely skeptical of “alternative” medicines.
Sorry about the duplication of the Dec 30 post – I meant to post it here.
The best thing about this decade is definitely finding out there was a sceptical /skeptical movement and the ease of use of technology has allowed me to identify myself as not just a largely cynical person but someone who won’t believe that this email sent to me will bring me luck if sent to five others because of logical thought and plain old common sense.
Podcasting brought me to the attention of the SGU and other like minded people and for the ‘teens’ or whatever the next decade is called I wish that people would not listen to scare stories but the plausibility of the information they receive – piece by piece.
By the way….Science based Medicine ? A trully awesome piece of thinking that will hopefully lead to less belief in quackery if people pick up on the fact that results are only as good as the conditions and procedures the. Came from…flawed protocols…flawed results….flawed medicine!
Welcome new decade – Funkyfredfrog- UK
The past decade has also seen the stubborn persistence of Neo-Darwinists in not only ignoring but actively opposing the advances made in the understanding and showing of how organisms contribute “intelligently” to their own evolution.
Evidence (among much other) of the advancement of the more “intelligent” approaches to come:
Cell. 2007 Feb 23;128(4):655-68.
Timescales of genetic and epigenetic inheritance.
Rando OJ, Verstrepen KJ.
Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Pharmacology, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, MA 01605, USA. oliver.rando@umassmed.edu
According to classical evolutionary theory, phenotypic variation originates from random mutations that are independent of selective pressure. However, recent findings suggest that organisms have evolved mechanisms to influence the timing or genomic location of heritable variability. Hypervariable contingency loci and epigenetic switches increase the variability of specific phenotypes; error-prone DNA replicases produce bursts of variability in times of stress. Interestingly, these mechanisms seem to tune the variability of a given phenotype to match the variability of the acting selective pressure. Although these observations do not undermine Darwin’s theory, they suggest that selection and variability are less independent than once thought.
PMID: 17320504 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Great post. I second #3 that one of the best things this decade was finding podcasts like SGU.
Some anti-science beliefs are definitely worse than others. Ghost hunting (and BTW, my teen just watched one of those shows for the first time and said you were not nearly harsh enough), and denying the moon landing just aren’t as harmful as fighting against vaccination or denying global warming. On the other hand, as post #2 pointed out, these kinds of anti-reason ideas tend to occur together.
Here’s hoping for a little less woo in the coming decade.
Can you really mention 9-11 truthers and not the missing WMDs from Iraq? Weren’t the anti-government conspiracy nutcases (erm, liberal skeptics) right about those? I mean, if you’re gonna go all political.
I agree with these, but I think integrative medicine will not go away, especially with the internet, the influence of academia, all the money to be made…
I’ll grant you that watching snails mating [1] isn’t as exciting as, say, watching leopard slugs mating [2], but it still makes more compelling TV than ghost-hunting.
[1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hs33L62r5bs
[2] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rK-NnQ0qrlw
Another win you can add to the list is Scientology, which has suffered so much damage in the last few years that it may be on the verge of collapsing completely in the next few years.
Also, atheist/agnosticism/whatever you want to call it has reached America’s living rooms and has perhaps never been this popular. Numerous so-called “New Atheist” have been major bestsellers and like-minded individuals have used the internet to come together like never before.
And similarly, the skeptical movement has grown and become more organized like never before. There was no TAM, no NECSS, no skeptical DragonCon track, no SkeptiCamp, no skeptical podcasts, or even really skeptical blogs until the Naughties. And now younger people are getting involved like never before. That in itself is a major win for us.
Shalom Steve,
Happy New Year.
Happy new decade, however, is a different matter.
I expect the science blogs, at least, to get it right.
The present decade began on 1 January 2001 and will end on 31 December 2010. It’s the whole no year zero thing.
B’shalom,
Jeff
Hey Steve, what is happening with the Institute for Science and Medicine? I haven’t seen anything since the initial press release. I hope that it gets some traction in the next year. We need a strong voice for Skepticism that the press can turn to for sound information about current trends and stories in medicine, to counter the flow of nonsense and quackery.
“I think our digital age has something to do with it. Cameras are now ubiquitous, and yet all we get are crappy photos or videos.”
What a silly thing to say. If all you look at are crappy photos and videos then obviously you can make such a silly statement. However, if you do a bit of digging around then it’s clear there *are* good photos and videos of flying saucers and recent ones at that. For example,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbYcOJ5GmEs&feature=fvw
However, is a photo or a video really going to convince you of anything Steve?
Good list Steven. I would only add (as cyberdraco suggested) global warming denial – global warming being one thing that could effect all of us in ways we can’t fully imagine. Witness the anti-science attitude of people who actually think that some leaked emails and the use of the word “trick” negates the volumes of scientific papers on this issue.
Oh and Hyphenman – please read Phil Plait’s post A little decadence. 2010 is the start of the new decade.
davidsmith – I can be convinced by compelling evidence. The video you link to, however, is crap.
The image is just fuzzy enough that you cannot get a sense of detail, size, or distance. There is a slight pendulum swing to the object – i.e. it is dangling from something.
I get a typical response whenever I write that there are no compelling videos or photos of alien spacecraft. And always – the responder links to crappy videos or photos.
The point to consider – can we say with any reliability based upon that video, or other videos, that the object must be a large spacecraft? The answer in invariably – no. The evidence is consistent with either a hoax or misidentified object.
Occasionally we get good hoaxes – but still far from what we would need to conclude spacecraft. And the better hoaxes typically lack info on source – apparently so they cannot be tracked to whoever made the video.
@davidsmith
I think that video falls under the “crappy photos or video” category. It’s very fuzzy and there’s little detail available. There is, however, enough detail to criticize the authenticity. The “spacecraft” must be quite small and close to the camcorder, otherwise it couldn’t have possibly zoomed in as close as it did. Considering the quality of the video I don’t think it’s a very good one and I doubt it has the zoom capabilities to close in on something high in the sky while at the same time being able to resolve further detail as it zoomed in.
The text comments made during the video are also suspicious. The person who uploaded the video keeps adding new information, making excuses, for some reason, as if the video alone wasn’t enough. It’s not, but from the perspective of a believer it would be; at least you believe it.
@Steven
Thanks to you and the rest of the community. All of you provide an invaluable wealth of information that swells the ranks as more and more people discover it.
Also I agree with cyberdraco in that AGW was also a prominent fixture this past decade. Especially with the recent leak of those emails and Copenhagen I think that the issue of climate change is on a lot of people’s minds. In my personal experience it’s something I hear about a lot from the people I meet and unfortunately it’s mostly in the form of terribly ignorant quips deriding the concept of anthropomorphic climate change. “It’s so cold, so much for global warming!”
At least there’s a place I can escape to reality
I’d like to suggest the AIDS denialism movement be added to this list.
One one hand, Thabo Mbeki’s no longer being in power in South Africa is a step forward, but unfortunately not before such great damage was done.
Just as an aside about the decade naming…
I’ve set up a thread in GENERAL DISCUSSION on the SGU forums for ideas on what this new decade could / should be referred to.
I thought there wasn’t an ideal name for 2000-2009 but the noughties won through in my opinion.
After I get a few suggestions I’ll then turn it into a poll with actual results….at this present time we have about 3 names….if you’ve got an idea please let us know…..maybe the SGU could also come up with thoughts on a name?
Anyway, I would have to concur with Steve about the video and also say that with all this technology that we have at our disposal, it is logical to presume that we would be getting increased amounts of much better quality footage of so called Extra Terrestrial UFO’s.
Instead we are getting the same old grainy images or these days, orbs, or streaks.
It seems to me that a logical person would assess these new images and the current crop of quote on quote “UFO visual imagery” in relation to technological capabilities increase and wonder….why haven’t we seen the quality of the evidence increase in pace with what the technology can posses us to do cinematically etc?
I would love UFO’s of an ET type be visiting us.
Until I can see reason to believe in it then I’m afraid I can’t.
I don’t make leaps of faith. I make steps of logic. Little by little.
FFF
Do you have details regarding your interview on Corus Radio, Steve? Anywhere we can listen online?
“The image is just fuzzy enough that you cannot get a sense of detail, size, or distance”
Of course you would say that, but I don’t believe you. I think you would say anything but admit there is footage of a UFO that should be taken seriously. I think that the video image is probably good enough for a qualified image analyst to estimate how far away the object is and how large it is. The person who took the video has given plenty of information about who he is, where the footage was taken and what kind of video camera he used. He even flimed himself talking about it in the very same back yard so his identity is not in question, contrary to your claim.
So we seem to have reached a deadlock there. It would be great if this footage could be anaysed by someone who knows what they are talking about. I don’t mean to be rude, but I don’t think a neurologist is qualified to talk about video image analysis – unless you have the necessary skills and qualifications I don’t know about.
Is it a hoax? It could be, but someone who doesn’t want to admit there exists good footage of a UFO is bound to shout hoax at any decent footage that comes their way. It’s an unfortunate catch 22. I would certainly not say it is a “crap” video. There *are* alot of crap photos and videos, but there are also good ones like this one.
You and Gareth Binks also claim that as video cameras become ubiquitous there is not a similar increase in the number and quality of UFO photos and videos.
Where is the evidence for this claim? Exaclty how has the change in video quality been examined over time to back up this statement? As Stanton Friedman likes to say, this is just ‘investigation by proclamation’.
Finally, who said anything about alien spacecraft? Let’s just contend with ‘UFO’ for now – speculation about who is behind these things can come later.
A good UFO video should have the camera operator moving in such a way to get some parallax information to determine the distance of the object, and thus approximate the size.
It was the only thing I could think while watching the video, I have nothing to determine the distance the object is from the camera.
Listen, it doesn’t take a “video image analyst” to understand how a camera zoom works. You just need to have used a video camera before in your life. I am skeptical that a cheap camcorder (and I say cheap because the video quality is just mediocre, my iPhone’s camera takes better video than that sans the ability to zoom) is able to zoom in on an object which should be high in the sky and begin to resolve further detail in the object that was not apparent when it was zoomed out. This indicates that the object is close enough to the camcorder so that its zoom function was able to zoom in on it such that it took up as much of the field of view as it did and if this is the case it must also be quite small which points towards a model and not an actual “UFO”.
A camera that takes poor quality video while at the same time being able to zoom in on an object high in the sky makes as much sense as extraterrestrial UFOs, which is to say it makes no sense at all. Can you tell me what camera was used, since it was apparently disclosed?
If someone who knows more about this would care to disprove what I’m saying I would of course consider it but you are obviously just as beholden to the words of experts as anyone else and I would not take your word on its own.
DavidSmith: Are you serious or are you just trying to get a response from people? There are hundreds of mediocre videos like that… apparently the UFOs are so high tech that cameras made after 1989 cannot receive them.
“Is it a hoax? It could be, but someone who doesn’t want to admit there exists good footage of a UFO is bound to shout hoax at any decent footage that comes their way.”
- Apparently you fail to acknowledge that the burden of proof is on you. A game of ‘prove this crappy video is not a spacecraft’ is a waste of time for everyone.
“Finally, who said anything about alien spacecraft?”
- Umm.. well… actually you did:
“…it’s clear there *are* good photos and videos of flying saucers and recent ones at that. For example,”
- Unless you meant nonalien spacecraft flying saucers. Please if you are going to post something like that here, bring something a little stronger.
Excellent rundown of the decade! Let me take this time to thank you, as others have, for all you do for skepticism. I, too, came to the skeptical movement via SGU, and thank you and the rogues ever so much for opening these doors to me!
Have a great new year, and new decade! I think we are gaining ground, and will continue to do so.
Peace!
If UFOs were visiting in the numbers that believers seem to think they are, you would expect a real flying saucer appearance in a reasonably populated area to be recorded on many different videos, taken from a variety of sources and users (cellphones, digital cameras, even CCTV) because those cameras are EVERYWHERE now. So you can argue about the quality or not of one source – my question is “What did everyone else in the area film?”
davidsmith,
I am laughing out loud at that video. Thanks for the link. Keep the faith brother. LOL! I can’t stop laughing. I really expected to see something good. LOL!
Bryce,
Image analysts are able to estimate the size and distance of objects in UFO photographs (for example the Trent Farm photos) so I presume similar techniques can be used in video footage when little or no parallax information is present. Unless you have reason to assume otherwise?
Anthony Cochetti,
Scepticism is about finding out before making conclusions.
Firstly, this is a youtube video which means that the original (an analogue tape version according to the person who took the footage) could be considerably better quality in terms of resolution.
Secondly, in another youtube video, the person who shot the footage shows the camera and tape that was used. It looks like a Sony Hi8 camcorder (see – http://www.sony.co.uk/product/sdh-hi-8/ccd-trv238e). If this is indeed the correct camera, it has a x20 optical zoom. We can see another youtube video taken of aircraft ‘high up in the sky’ with a Sony Hi8 camcorder here – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfhpAVvrqRg. Observe the zoom on the aircraft from 0.09 to 0.11. Before the zoom, the aircraft is a small image and with not much detail. After the zoom, the aircraft takes up a substantial portion of the screen and you can see more detail that was not apparent when zoomed out. This is contrary to your claims.
Ideally, I would again say that video should be analysed by someone suitably qualified (I’m assuming you aren’t), but in the apparent absence of such a person, you could do the next best thing – get hold of the same or similar camera that was used to take this footage, zoom in on a variety of different objects of known size at different distances and then compare the results with the UFO. I could do it myself I guess, but until this kind of thing or better is done, you can’t conclude that the object is small and expect someone to take your word for it. You even make this conclusion while at the same time asking what kind of camera he is using! It’s also interesting that you seem to be able to estimate the size of the object as “small” yet two other posters seem to think that there is *no* information present that would enable an estimation of the size of the object. Who are we to believe? In my opinion, your collective scepticism is undermined by these contradictory statements that aren’t based on any supporting evidence, just assertions.
“If UFOs were visiting in the numbers that believers seem to think they are…”
By use of the phrase ‘UFO’s were visiting’ you mean to assume that some UFO’s are alien craft for sake of argument?
If we assume for a moment that some UFO’s *are* alien craft, it may be that the number of craft visiting earth is actually very low and that most other UFO’s are misidentified terrestrial objects or hoaxes.
Depending on what the true number of alien craft visiting earth actually is (again, assuming they exist), and also where they choose to fly, we might expect relatively few cases of multiple video footage. It all depends on what assumptions you make, and where UFO’s are concerned I don’t think either of us are in a position to make any confident conclusions on this issue.
Like I asked before, where is the *evidence* to back up the claim that the quality and number of UFO videos is not increasing as cameras become more widespread?
And if anyone is thinking of doing such an analysis, how do you assess an increase in video quality? But more importantly, how do you know which videos represent real UFO’s on which to base this analysis, and which are the hoaxes?
BTW, with regards to the UFO footage we are discussing here, the guy claims it was early morning so that might explain why there is apparently no other video of it.
davesmith – this is what you wrote –
# davidsmithon 01 Jan 2010 at 12:20 pm
“I think our digital age has something to do with it. Cameras are now ubiquitous, and yet all we get are crappy photos or videos.”
What a silly thing to say. If all you look at are crappy photos and videos then obviously you can make such a silly statement. However, if you do a bit of digging around then it’s clear there *are* good photos and videos of flying saucers and recent ones at that. For example,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbYcOJ5GmEs&feature=fvw
However, is a photo or a video really going to convince you of anything Steve?
So I guess if YOU mentioned flying saucers not meaning alien spacecraft then you should make sure that your overall point of view and posts give the impression of this.
As for a neurologist not being able to comment on the video?
I can see the comments about the lack of background and movement make sense and I don’t need to be a technical wizard to see that.
PS the video is pish and posh!
“Apparently you fail to acknowledge that the burden of proof is on you. A game of ‘prove this crappy video is not a spacecraft’ is a waste of time for everyone.”
I’m only asking for people to back up their own claims. I didn’t mean to imply that it is an alien spacecraft. I’m saying it is a good quality video of what appears to be a flying saucer (by that I meant an object in the sky resembling the classic description of a flying saucer) which was in response to Steve’s initial claim that all we get is ‘crap photo’s and videos’. I’m only making a claim about the quality of the video, not what it represents. Why is it good quality? Well, there’s good light, it’s not fuzzy, relatively steady and there is information on where it was taken and with what video camera. In my opinion that’s would be enough information on which to base an analysis to estimate some information about the object’s size and distance. But of course, I don’t really know anything about image analysis so I could be wrong. The trouble is, nobody with a sceptical position on UFO’s seems to give an indication as to what would convince them to take a video or photo seriously in advance of seeing it. And yes, I am serious, not just trying to get a reaction.
“Please don’t get pedantic on me…”
Steve come on. You forget your audience. Is that really a realistic request. Don’t be pedantic? You are asking this of us skeptics.
Here is some cake and you can also eat it.
David – I did not say that we never know who took the video. I said we never have BOTH a high-quality video and knowledge of the source. I do not define this video, as I stated, as high quality.
I am not attempting a high level technical analysis of the video – but a common sense visual analysis. I am perfectly open to professional technical analysis – is there any? But having said that, I would require multiple independent analysis as I have seen crappy technical analysis of video that was later proven to be hoaxed – so that is not reliable either.
David – you are simply assuming (dismissing by proclamation) that I have some a-priori reason to reject evidence of UFOs. I don’t. Bring it on – I want to believe – just show me something compelling. Really, this is such a tired and childish dismissal of legitimate skepticism it is boring and embarrassing.
Back to the video – it’s crap. After zooming way in we still have no detail. There is no way to judge size. It appears to be dangling. If that were a large ship why aren’t there dozens of such videos from different angles? Why is the clip so short? Why don’t we see the ship fly away? Would you take your camera off it?
If this is the best you have, you have proven my point.
What would I take seriously – a video that showed something that could not simply be a small model. The source has to be known and credible. And it has to pass technical inspection to rule out fraud. And the story needs to hold up. It would be best if there were multiple shots from different angles – something to back up that a real even occurred.
But I have yet to see video that even gets up to the plate. All we get are short snippets that fit cleanly into one of the styles of the UFO hoax.
I guess the guy who took the video of the alien spacecraft got bored, went inside ate a sandwich and took a nap. Only later did he realize what he had discovered!
“Nothing happens – they are as boring as watching snails mate.”
For hot snail on snail action, check out this new website:
http://www.gastroXXXpods.net
Sorry, couldn’t resist. ; -)
When a list like this is created is this based upon what skeptics were most interested in talking about at the time, or is it more which topics have impacted the mainstream the most? Also, I wonder how we will view this list 5-10 years from now.
Steve,
“David – I did not say that we never know who took the video. I said we never have BOTH a high-quality video and knowledge of the source.”
Well, as long as you deny that any UFO video with a known source is of good quality, you can maintain internal consistency I guess.
“I am not attempting a high level technical analysis of the video – but a common sense visual analysis. ”
But ‘common sense visual analysis’ is flawed. Why should you be excused any perceptual or cognitive bias in this instance? A technical analysis is all that should be acceptable before making conclusions. And I would guess that the video is of high enough quality to do such an analysis, whatever the outcome. Unless there is someone here with enough knowledge and experience to say otherwise.
“I am perfectly open to professional technical analysis – is there any?”
Not that I know of unfortunately. But why are you perfectly open to technical analysis at the same time as being so confident that there is no way to judge the size of this object?
“But having said that, I would require multiple independent analysis as I have seen crappy technical analysis of video that was later proven to be hoaxed – so that is not reliable either.”
I agree. And it could also work the other way round – crappy technical analysis that claims it is a hoax.
“David – you are simply assuming (dismissing by proclamation) that I have some a-priori reason to reject evidence of UFOs. I don’t. Bring it on – I want to believe – just show me something compelling. Really, this is such a tired and childish dismissal of legitimate skepticism it is boring and embarrassing. ”
I haven’t seen much legitimate scepticism in this discussion yet – just assertions. For example, I’m still waiting for someone to present *evidence* to back up the claim that the quality and number of UFO video clips has not increased as cameras become more available. Nor have I seen any decent discussion about the reasons why the size of this particular UFO cannot be estimated. Someone mentioned lack of parallax information, but surely that would only reduce the accuracy of any estimation rather than make any such estimation impossible – after all, object size can be estimated from photographs yes?
“Back to the video – it’s crap. After zooming way in we still have no detail. ”
There is certainly more detail after zooming in. But what level of detail were you expecting and why would it help?
“There is no way to judge size. ”
Why not?
“It appears to be dangling. ”
It’s more swaying I would say. I wonder if some sort of filter would show up a line or string of some sort?
“If that were a large ship why aren’t there dozens of such videos from different angles? ”
Could be a variety of reasons. It was early in the morning – not many people about. It didn’t make any noise so there would be no reason to expect such an object to be there so no reason to look up to the skies. If people can fail to notice a man in a gorilla suit right in front of them, they sure could miss a silent hovering object in the sky.
“Why is the clip so short? ”
That is a cut down version. I think the full version is a few minutes. It moves over to the trees.
“Why don’t we see the ship fly away?”
He claims his battery ran out. It is apparently common for close-up UFO’s to interfere with electric devices. He then said the object just drifted into the distance and out of sight.
davidsmith,
Do you believe that aliens are piloting spacecraft in our atmosphere and that the original link you provided is evidence that supports your belief?
Steve,
I admire your patience. I think the guy is a crank. When he said he had a link to a good flying saucer video I guess my expectations were high. As a result, when I saw the linked video I cracked up and had a great laugh. I got the illusion that it was like a lantern on top of an invisible pole. It didn’t seem to me to be moving at all.
David Smith, it’s funny that you should mention other videos. I was curious so I looked for them and I found one video where the person who took the footage is interviewed and another which shows small images of letters apparently from the University of Mexico, which he says confirm the validity of the video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXqWhGYwj1M
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnOywclWe58
It’s the first video which is most important, though the second one has one line of text which supports my conclusion. Luckymauro, the user who uploaded these videos, is supposed to be the person who shot the video in the first place. He makes numerous notations in each version uploaded. In the first video, the one you linked, he notes that the object is small. The description is vague so I ignored it, however in the second video, the first link above, it is noted that the craft is seen near the trees and that the birds are scared by it. The last video also notes the close proximity of the object.
So he does admit that the object is close and is quite small and I was right when I made that conclusion based off of how the camera’s zoom functioned.
I do agree that the camera appears to be a Sony Hi8 but I’m afraid I am not convinced by the other video you posted where jet aircraft are recorded. Note that the footage was taken at an airshow so that the aircraft would be close to the ground, and not anywhere near the altitude you would find them normally. Besides the fact that it was an airshow you can also see how close they are when they fly behind buildings and trees. Admittedly the jet aircraft at the airshow are still higher than where the UFO appears to be but this can be explained by what Luckymauro said about the size and proximity of the object. If what he says is to be believed then the UFO would be smaller than the jet aircraft. A smaller object that’s closer to a viewer could appear to be the same size as a larger object that is further away. Since the UFO was described as being near the trees, close enough to disturb birds, I must conclude that it is indeed quite small, smaller than the jet aircraft at the airshow.
Lastly I wanted to add to the notion that Luckymauro’s excuses are really odd and don’t help his credibility at all. In the video where he’s interviewed he tries to explain why he doesn’t say anything during the video he shot. He says that the UFO was transmitting a signal to him which prevented him from speaking. He also notes that his dog, who would usually bark, only growled implying the UFO had some kind of hold on it as well. Even if this were true I am wondering why the birds, which were apparently disturbed by this object according to Luckymauro, were not similarly affected by the UFO? Not only can you see birds flying in front of the camera but you can also hear them. This isn’t really meant as evidence against the validity of the video, I just find it inconsistent and odd. All of his videos include excuses which I find suspicious.
But of course this is all just common sense visual analysis and what do I know?
“Do you believe that aliens are piloting spacecraft in our atmosphere…”
From what I’ve read, I don’t think there is any normal explanation for many reported UFO cases, some of which include physical evidence. I think that alien spacecraft is a likely alternative explanation.
and that the original link you provided is evidence that supports your belief? ”
No.
“So he does admit that the object is close and is quite small and I was right when I made that conclusion based off of how the camera’s zoom functioned.”
One description of the size and distance of the object based on unreliable perceptual processes does not validate another description based on the same kind of unreliable perceptual processes. They are both unreliable. What we need is some kind of quantitative measurement based on the actual images present in the video and various other parameters estimated from the known size of objects in the footage. Like is said before, I guess that this video is good enough for someone suitably qualified to do that. That is why I said it was a good video in my first post. Granted, the object might be ’small’ compared to, say, a commercial airliner, but *how* small is it? Simply saying it is ’small’ because your subjective assessment agrees with luckymauro’s subjective assessment gives us no indication of the actual dimensions of the object and doesn’t give you reason to dismiss the object as a ‘model’.
“If what he says is to be believed then the UFO would be smaller than the jet aircraft.”
I didn’t post the video of the airshow as some attempt to prove that the object in the UFO video is of similar size to a jet aircraft. It was simply meant as a comparison of how much detail can be revealed from a Sony Hi8 camcorder when it zooms in on an object in the distance. The amount of detail revealed looks similar in both videos to me. But then again, now we’re both talking about things we don’t really know much about. Perhaps, the amount of detail revealed in the zoom portion of the UFO video is important in putting a number on the size of the object, perhaps not. If a qualified analyst has any calculations that would show this I would be interested. I am certainly very sceptical of your assertion that the zoom portion of the UFO footage somehow demonstrates that the UFO is a model.
“A smaller object that’s closer to a viewer could appear to be the same size as a larger object that is further away.”
So why aren’t you considering the possibility that its a larger object further away? Look, you can continue to provide vague descriptions based on unreliable and subjective judgements like “quite small”, “small”, and “smaller than a jet aircraft” but it won’t and shouldn’t convince me. What we need is reliable, quantitative estimations based on technical analysis of the video. This long discussion we’ve all been having is mainly because I’m objecting to claims and conlcusions that are being made without any evidence to back them up. It that such an unreasonable thing to ask for? We’re are having this discussion on a blog that promotes critical thinking after all.
Finally, I find your comments about the behaviour of the youtube user while filming the UFO to be utterly irrelavant. There could be countless explanations for his behaviour and the behaviour of the animals. His favoured explanation for his behaviour, however implausible, bears no relevance to any technical analysis of the video. People prone to flights of fancy are just as entitled to chance upon encounters with UFOs than the rest of us.
This was also a very good decade for the skeptic movement.
Hoping that we will be even better at presenting and selling it the upcoming decade. Like atheism, it is hard to define a skeptic without contrasting it to the contemporary woo.
David Smith I really don’t know what you’re trying to argue here. You’re completing discounting the testimony of the person who shot the video and you expect me to believe that the video is still somehow real? You seem to have very little confidence in the video at all, relying completely on the hope that an “expert” will validate it. Meanwhile multiple people have pointed out problems with the video which you brush away as being unreliable due to not being expert opinions. So the bottom line is you post this video as evidence of there being good video of UFOs, we are not impressed and point out problems with it, you discount those problems because they are not expert evaluations, I use the cameraman’s own testimony against him, you discount his testimony as unreliable, you finally admit that this is not evidence of alien aircraft, you completely render the video as unreliable and you still expect us to wait for an “expert” to tell us what to think.
No thanks. This video is so close to being a pie plate attached to a string I don’t think I need to wait. One video is not enough evidence for a person to change their worldview so drastically, especially when the authenticity of the video has been discounted to such a degree. We have problems with the video, you have problems with the testimony of the person who shot the video. What’s left to consider?
I don’t think there’s anything else that could be said, so at the risk of looking as though I’m taking my ball and running home, I’d like to end it. It was a fun discussion and I am by no means being sarcastic.
Yes, a great decade for Skeptics! However, it has not been a great start to the new decade for davidsmith.
I have a prediction. This decade will be a win for skepticism against the 2012 crowd and this win will be revealed in a few years.
“You’re completing discounting the testimony of the person who shot the video and you expect me to believe that the video is still somehow real?”
No, I’m not ‘completing discounting’ the testimony of the person who shot the video with regards to his assessment of the size of the object, I’m just sceptical of it. As am I sceptical of your assessment of the size of the object. As am I sceptical of the other posters, including Steve, who claim that there is no way to judge the size of the object, which is in complete contradiction to your claim by the way. As am I sceptical of the claim that the quality and number of UFO videos has not increased in line with the availability of video recording devices.
The reason why I’m sceptical of all these claims is because nobody has provided evidence to back them up. Show me the evidence! Instead, all we get is subjective judgements and empty assertions. If someone wishes to back up their claims with legitimate analysis, let me know.
The reason why I posted the link to the video in the first place was in response to Steve’s initial comments that “all we get is crap videos”. If he thinks that the UFO we’re discussing is not amendable to an analysis that could estimate the size and distance of the object, then I expect him to provide reasons why not, or otherwise admit that he doesn’t really know what he is talking about. As it stands, I’m sceptical of his claim because I have no information to go on – I’m certainly not going to take his word for it, or the word of anyone else for that matter. The one thing I have learnt in this discussion is how most people here can maintain their view – simply dismiss any UFO video as ‘crap’ on the basis of purely subjective opinion without any attempt at finding out reliable information about what the video represents.
Again Mr Smith you confuse the point of who is making the more unlikely claim. The more outlandish claim is that these videos are anything but hoaxes and/or known objects that are difficult to identify. Statements that these videos are crap are justified because there are hundreds of them, and there is little of interest that comes of them. You can speculate all day about them, but you are seeing what you would like to see. Its like staring at a piece of toast and seeing the face you want to see whether its Buddha or Jesus. You don’t need evidence to say that its just toast.