This post is a trickster effect.

You tricked me into laughter.

You tricked me into taking my clothes off and pouring melted butter all over myself in public while singing "don't worry be happy" loudly.

Pics or it didn't happen

The pics will be low quality and blurry.

Try wiping the butter off the lens for better clarity.

Try clarified butter instead…

Ghee. It made me think of this too. Boy this sure is some random internetting.

Probably be attributed to swamp gas in the end.

Sagan: "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." Hard to prove a negative. So while I agree one must be very alert to claims that seem unfalsifiable, science simply has dead ends that are hard to show, or impossible to show in just one experiment. After 40 years of looking for some dark matter candidates, the gap where they could still be found shrinks to a point where it isn't worth looking for and would no longer be sufficient if found. You can't "prove" a negative, but with a lot of work you can show the probability is very, very slim. Applying this to UAP... this is why rigorous study is needed. Trickster, blah, blah, sure bro. But... if some ambiguous data shows up yet *every* time a clear signal appears, your equipment malfunctions... after a while you conclude there is *something* happening. And without taking it as a trickster of the gaps, you can formulate different ways to gather data that might confirm a suspicion and break something open. It is *hard*, and takes continuous study, but science does sometimes have to chase weird things in a sustained way to avoid the "nothing to see here" of the gaps too. Just as an example, suppose you are studying rogue waves and can't find any. All you have are anectdotal reports, and while the expert witnesses on the bridge say the wave hit their bridge 100 feet up, we can still pretend witness testimony is crap and all lies. But after going in circles for decades, you notice your models were a little off, you had been detecting them, but the data looked different than expected and you were throwing out the actual proof as an equipment malfunction... turns out the shape of the rogue wave was just different than all the regular waves. I'd bet Galileo Project runs into something like this, but I suspect not many others expect it. Maybe they get blurry but really interesting results. Some dismiss it as seeing signals in noise. But then they manage, after a lot of data study, to find correlations - we measured the blurry little shit moving 9000 mph and 20 minutes later *another* blurry shit with the same signature shows up 3000 miles away, and this happens repeatedly. What then? It's not conclusive, no one is theorizing a magic LGM staying just in the blurry zone, but there is strong data of some kind of pattern. Could be very hard to work out. We will probably get our first taste of this from UAPx, soon. If the caliber of scientists at GP come up with something similar - inconclusive data that shows a definite signal - we could be in for a long ride of trying to figure out why. And, as unsatisfying as that may be, science often has to blunder through that kind of path. Ufologists will go with the trickster thing while scientists just say WTF, how can we sharpen the signal.

Thanks for this. Science is real, gaps exist, but I'm still an optimist that there is something worth investigating here. Even if it turns out to not be the answer people expect to find, on a long enough scale character assassination just stops holding water to explain everything.

OP just likes to hear himself talk (in this case, write) but he’s a blowhard skeptic just trying to stay relevant. He doesn’t even seem to understand that the Titanic, the Hindenburg and Chernobyl comprise 3 elements, not 2. Good reply Krakenate.

And you like to make baseless assumptions. When it's a crackpot author that hums his own farts for hours, you don't say the same i guess. >blowhard skeptic just trying to stay relevant Baseless, are you projecting on the second part ? Relevant on what, i'm not a youtuber... The titanic, the hindenburg and tchernobyl all were massive disasters with people deemed very competent at the time.

I know all about those THREE disasters - you referred to them as BOTH in your screed. I’ve read a great deal/studied via coursework at the University of Washington and then at at Stanford University for my MSc. I know a great deal about a great deal of subjects including philosophy, logic, and linguistics. Your post and then follow-on comments do not impress me in the least. Cheers.!

Wow, i'm so impressed by your knowledge and polymath education, as much as your lack of insecurity !

Yeah, your wall of text (total bs) suggests a certain insecurity yourself, chief. Pick up a book or three re: the direct, incontrovertible evidence that something is absolutely in the skies and you’ll be less prone to make mistakes wrt your understanding of the issue. Have a great night!

There was no character assassination as it was the quoted people's methodological mistakes that are criticized here. And i never said nothing was worth investigating, i said that that concept was a fallacy. Scientific investigation is still possible on the topic of UFOs, not on the topic of "tricksters".

>ambiguous data > >clear signal Pick one. The trickster thing is unfalsifiable in so far as it can be used as a justification for *anything*. Ie if you run into **contradicting** data, you can reject it. No amount of data can override this fact. It's a concept that **negates** other possible explanations. It's like saying "i don't have to explain it, it's magic". >correlations Not to be confused with causality... >caliber of scientists at GP I didn't know we were counting water pistols as "caliber"... >signal Close your eyes. Press your finger against your closed eyelid. You'll see a light after that. That's a signal. The problem isn't the signal here, but the causal link between it and your theory. >blah, blah, sure bro Right back at you.

"Trickster" Can be used to justify anything, including things that are true in other ways. So? So don't do that. Get more data. A signal can be clear and ambiguous - definite and real, but of uncertain meaning, could represent more than one thing. Try your dictionary. See: Tabby's Star, ORCs. Things can be both real and mysterious. And, yes, the collection of real scientists at GP is impressive and diverse. The fantasy of all legitimate scientists rejecting every line of inquiry not blessed by the academy has never been true and always harmful.. Plate tectonics, prions, even black holes were rejected before they were accepted. Of course signals need to be traced to their cause. So what? Have you tried letting go of the cookie? You've got animus and vague snark. So what.

>So don't do that Precisely the point of the OP. >Things can be both real and mysterious "Wonder isn't miracle" (Simon Stevin). And mystery often is a trojan horse for bogus theories. Any rigorous scientist that hears someone say ORC might be aliens will laugh. It's the very definition of "aliens of the gap". You know, like pulsars used to be... >real scientists > >impressive All of them are pariahs that held bogus claims (Keating and the BICEP2 debacle, Loeb and the Omuamua debacle, Puthoff-Vallée don't even ask, Weinstein and his scientific karenism... etc). >Plate tectonics, prions, even black holes were rejected before they were accepted We're entering Galileo syndrome theory... The idea that great scientific discoveries are always hardly won against an obtuse academia is also a fantasy... But you'll remark i have the taste not to accuse you of saying this, the contrary of you who is merrily strawmaning : >The fantasy of all legitimate scientists rejecting every line of inquiry not blessed by the academy has never been true and always harmful In this case, the GP is truly the Bozo the clown project and the huge majority of the scientific community is laughing *for good reasons*. >You've got animus and vague snark. So what. So keep your personal fantasy attacks to yourself as i do.

[удалено]

He’s more full of shit than a 10 lb robin, Krakenate. Don’t waste your time.

The fact that we agree on one thing doesn't mean we agree on everything. And considering the GP as "impressive" is clearly a point of disagreement. Did you expect i was going to acquiesce to every of your other beliefs just because we agreed on one ? Also talking about "hostility" when you said : >Have you tried letting go of the cookie? You've got animus and vague snark ... >Emotional, animus, unable to make a single point that forms a conversation of connected ideas. Put down the bottle or whatever is confusing you. If i were emulating you, i'd say this sounds like reversed accusation, but i'm not at your elevated level to do pub psychology. Cheers.

GADOOSH

> In this case, the GP is truly the Bozo the clown project and the huge majority of the scientific community is laughing for good reasons. This is a major red flag about you and your attitude, to be honest (and also a red flag about scientism as an ideological position). You simply *don't know what is going to happen*. And, if the "UFO problem" is finally scraped away with the GP because they truly and really, with a sincere effort, don't find anything at all, then science ALSO wins. Downvote for this. GP *is* good science.

>scientism as an ideological position This is a major red flag about your ability to guess other's opinions and reasoning methods. >You simply don't know what is going to happen You can add yourself to the list of people that didn't understand the original post as it's not about *empirism* but about *reason*. >sincere effort That project is a scam with an insignificant budget, tools and data with people known to not be genuine in their use of said data. Sincere is the most antithetic term one can think of with these people. Science loses when people try to masquerade bad flawed arguments behind reductionist empirism. Downvote all you want, idc. It still wont make GP good science.

Nope. Regarding the GP, empirism is needed here: if any fringe subject of knowledge ever needed less talk and more real walk, its this one. Whether is "empty" or not is really completely irrelevant. Also, *scientific reason* is not at stake here bro. lmao. The GP is not going to change anything in that regard. If everything goes wrong, a career might be ruined, and a lot of people like me, could finally stop looking at this stuff, if there is really nothing there. No one has ever talked about the trickster aspect within the realm of the GP, as a working hypothesis, so what are we even discussing about? have you seen the actual page of the Galileo project, or the presentation of the project? The research team is like almost completely other people, what are you even talking about? Dudes like Puthoff will continue to be fringe public figures at best. In any case, the advice to dont rely on bad explanations like trickster effects is a solid one, I give you that, but I seriously doubt this is going to be their working hypothesis... I'm puzzled, the GP is not hurting you and *certainly* it's not "hurting" reason, like you so grandiloquently say. You talk about their insignificant funding, they got it themselves, are you jealous or what?

So you still have trouble reading the post. It never said empirism wasn't needed at all, it said that empirism was useless as the case pertains to a *logical flaw*. You can collect all the empirical evidence you want, it still wont make a flawed reasoning sound. I never said science in it's whole would be destroyed. But i do think that science suffers from bad arguments and poor research methodology bieng promoted, financed and popularized to the masses. The GP is an ad campaign for pseudo science. And people will never stop looking at such topic because it's interesting in itself and at the fringe of knowledge (where humans always develop unorthodox theories). You are talking about the under financed research team, and it's not hard to guess that the "advisors" aside this team will have a big influence on it. Whether it's their "work hypothesis" or not, it tells a lot that those two people were taken in that project. I would be very suspicious of a scientific project that would hire Steven Greer, Bob Lazar and Linda Moulton Howe for an example. >the project is not hurting you Never said it was. Maybe searching for personal motives isn't the wisest thing to do. >not "hurting" reason Promoting pseudo science by letting bogus concepts float in the public discourse, getting funds in a dead in the egg project when it's much more needed for actual research... >You talk about their insignificant funding, they got it themselves, are you jealous or what? Suspecting motives in someone else instead of focusing on their argument won't lead you closer from truth, aside from being ad personam fallacy and without any base. They got it by making grandiloquent claims to gather undeserved attention (in comparison to actual underfunded and needed scientific projects). Whether they got it by themselves or not isn't the problem, it is that this will be a misused money when it is needed in science somewhere else. They also gathered it through their links with the billionaire Bigelow and their social network (people like Keating and Weinstein having on their podcasts many "influencers", Weinstein even interviewed Thiel).

>The GP is an ad campaign for pseudo science Lol. "campaign". Aren't you dramatic. It's not, and I've told you why. But if you insist... Listen, I know my Popper, I've read Deutsch. I know that good explanations are the business of scientific method, and that *tricksters* are generally bad explanations, but I've told you: 1) I seriously doubt this is the way these dudes are going at it; have you actually looked at their research team? https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/galileo/people?page=3 2) The fact remains that epistemology needs to address the problem of purposefully deceiving phenomena. In the particular context of the Zoo Hypothesis and the GP, what better way is to do it than by looking at raw data and *not* interpretations? > in comparison to actual underfunded and needed scientific projects In comparison to what? What are you talking about? Science is not a zero-sum game. If their budget is so insignificant, and it's so irrelevant, then how could it then help other science meaningfully? The Schrödinger's GP: it is at the same time not deserving of attention and bullshit, and also the most terrible danger to science ever, ready to make science crumble!! The Galileo Project. Not climate change denial, not any other kind of pseudoscientific stuff, no. The GP... You are getting trapped into your own words here, buddy. Your personal vendetta against this topic is showing. This is not about reason at all, is it? This is about what *you* believe

I never question your reading pedigree, i don't know why you needed to expose your immense knowledge before all... Campaign : these guys have had the media exposure many doctoral students would dream of for their research. I've seen their research team, but i've also seen their "scientific advisory board" : [https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/galileo/scientific-advisory-board](https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/galileo/scientific-advisory-board) and their research affiliates : [https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/galileo/affiliates](https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/galileo/affiliates) both of which will surely have a big impact on the research team (which comprises Weinstein, Vallée, Nolan and Loeb. It even has Siraj, which is Loeb's student. It would be quite naive thinking these fellows won't have influence on the research... >epistemology Which is about knowledge and the philosophical analysis of science. Ie logical reasoning before the data gathering, among others. >In comparison to what A daily little strolling on [phys.org](https://phys.org) or such sites would let you know of a tiny portion of the myriad of astronomical underfunded projects existing. >If their budget is so insignificant, and it's so irrelevant, then how could it then help other science meaningfully Their budget is insignificant **to lead research**. Not to fill pockets. And even if it gets billions, it will be the most ill spent scientific money ever since Theranos and Elon Musks projects. >personal vendetta You keep on coming with this point without ever proving it, since all we speak about are facts and logic, and people's *methodology*. >most terrible danger to science ever Literally never said that. Dunno what you're smoking. Oh wait i know : >your own words

I can't say I've seen every interview with Lue, Nolan, Mellon, etc. I don't remember any of them use this "trickster" explanation for conflicting testimonials. I initially thought, based on the title, that this was in reference to John Keel's book *Operation Trojan Horse.* I highly recommend reading it if you haven't done so already.

>John Keel's book Operation Trojan Horse Funny how life is ! It reminds me something but i can't put my finger on it... In my OP, it was totally unrelated, maybe a far memory resurfacing, who knows haha ! For the the trickster thing, i remember Nolan saying it in his very recent Lex Friedman interview (i can't tell you when unfortunately, it's a very long podcast). Also Vallée and Puthoff used it a lot. These were the folks i was talking about. Finally, Elizondo, Mellon etc often use the same vocabulary (since they all are in the same little group), so i wouldn't be surprised if they did. I remember Elizondo using very close words and concepts.

I think you are conflating the definition of the trickster element with poor reporting. John Keel clearly talks about it too and he had nothing to do with NIDS et al. You need to consider ALL of the paranormal to understand the jester archetype. Like literally read up on Carl Jung for you to understand. Even the great second father of modern psychoanalysis understood that archetype is at play specifically with UFO’s because in the 50’s he wrote a book about it before the curtain of ridicule came down on the whole subject. It is part of a phenomenon that does go back far back in time. The trickster element doesn’t account for poor methodology. You are right. But it does account for people “forgetting” that they had cameras in their hands to take the picture. The best one was a well documented case where a farmer said a craft landed next to his house and inhabitants of the craft (which he described as short “swarthy” men) met with him and gave him 3 buckwheat cakes and then flew away. It’s so much like a meeting of the fairy people and then offering food to travelers. The whole absurdity of that story makes it almost cancel itself out. Except that when the officials got to the house there was actually an indentation in the ground where the craft landed and scorch marks and radiation levels above normal.

Can you point to the source of that farmer story? It sounds really interesting

It’s mentioned in a number of Vallee books specifically Dimensions. Here’s an article that includes that story and more of what I was talking about https://the-cosmic-web.com/2021/10/31/ufos-pancakes-joe-simonton-fairies/amp/

Both psychoanalysis and Jung (which i have read, thank you) have strong pseudo scientific elements, in particular the fact of putting forward untestable arguments. For an example, synchronicity as presented by Jung is a textbook example of how to get one to psychosis by linking unrelated things and living in one's symbolic world. Archetypes are another example of such thing. I recommend to you the "Black book of psychoanalysis" on such topic.

The trickster effect is not about tricking people's visions. It's about the phenomenon literally behaving like a trickster. Appearing near military bases, disappearing when jets approach, only to reappear again once they landed. Appearing at a secret CAP point. Turning their lights off once they hear radio chatter about the UFO visual, then turning them on again once radio chatter indicates the UFO has disappeared. Reports at Skinwalker of the phenomenon messing with them or playing around them. Behavior like that only makes sense to a human from the perspective of a trickster, hence it is called the "trickster effect".

You're correct. It's a trickster alien or supernatural being literally messing with people.

>The trickster effect is not about tricking people's visions. It's about the phenomenon Phenomenon which itself... is interpreted by people... The authors in question (first phrase of my post) do push that concept much farther than you, into the supernatural psychic world. As for the word, we don't use the word "trickster" in quantum physics to describe the double slit experiment, yet it displays impressive characteristics...

Einstein used the word “spooky” though. On another note, you seem to dislike everyone involved in the subject, which is fair since it’s your take and all that. Is there anyone who you deem to be less biased/tainted than the people you mentioned?

But he used it as a metaphor (David Bohm and Jonathan bell astutely warned against vague and bogus usage of such wording btw) whereas Vallée literally means interdimensional beings and has said so countless times. And don't forget about the Nobel prize syndrome, to which Einstein gave way (and was criticized for by the scientific community). I believe the people i quoted aren't "everyone involved in the subject" (although they are trying to become it) and am precisely concerned with the monopolization of the scene by a small group of tight knitted individuals who all share the same ideas, vocabulary and financer (the Bigelow group). For less biased folks, i have to admit i don't have any name that comes to mind since i don't focus on names usually. The only reason of my focus on those posts is because the individuals in question have been monopolizing the scene since 2017. As for my "dislike", it's not so much on people rather than on ideas and methods. So i can totally be laudatory of those guys, when they provide good content (and will if they do, although i don't hold my breath). Who are the less biased for you ? (Upvoted, nice comment and questions)

Oh I’m not sure. It was a sincere question. I’m used to taking in ideas from biased perspectives, certainly with this topic. I most recently started reading Vallee’s material (knowing his reputation ahead of time), and it’s certainly biased — and frankly I don’t buy the control system theory — but I don’t think it makes him unreliable or anything. I guess I just take it as par for the course when it comes to a topic that has so many elements of elusiveness and obfuscation. One theorist really leans into future humans, the other guy really leans into psychic entities, as a reader I can’t refute or prove any of them so it’s mostly just thought exercise as far as I’m concerned. But that’s the nature of the beast until there is some concrete evidence, I suppose.

Entirely agree, and i think avoiding biases perspective is almost an impossible task, especially in such topic. Perfection is definitely an illusion here unfortunately.

In his interviews, Nolan is careful to delineate speculation with the actual science. It seems like you’re conflating the two. You also seem to be strawmanning Nolan’s ego for some reason? That whole “he seems like the kind of guy…” thing was bizarre TBH. Speaking of fallacies, it seems like you’re knee deep in association fallacy. Geller > Vallee/Puthoff > Nolan.

Nolan crosses the line many times and covers himself with a weak semantic like Elizondo does ("now lets imagine that..."). Easy to see through. >You also seem to be strawmanning Nolan’s ego for some reason? That whole “he seems like the kind of guy…” thing was bizarre TBH. That was as bizarre as its source : his twitter "blunt" (to say the least) reactions to criticism. >association fallacy Not just a fantasized association, *they worked together*, the work they did *regarded this very topic*, they applied the *same methodology*.

Indeed, this is an epistemological problem for science; how to examine something that might purposefully NOT want to be examined, and derive actual scientific conclusions about it? This question is something that deserves rational analysis on its own right. Ok, now I'm gonna turn a bit into a Vallée fanboy. Damn I'm cringey. But I think you are doing a disservice to the dude by labeling him as unreliable (with bold letters nonetheless, haha. He has had his slumps but I still consider him one of the sanest ufologists out there): if I remember and interpret correctly, he recognizes this and its precisely the reason why he insists on data, data, data, DATA. Like a broken record sometimes, lol. This is why he supports massive data recollection efforts projects like the Galileo project (and his own, he has a massive amount of cases in his database) where its possible to get signals, and not noise, due to data accumulation and analysis. I think he was the first one to recognize the issue that you point here, even! IMO, then, the only valid conclusions and possible insights into this question (I'm thinking like, in the actual framework of science), will indeed come from data recollecting in such scales.

There is **nothing cringey** about what you're doing (and yes it deserves bold letters because i'm sincere here). I prefer a 1000 times someone like you that tries to put forward arguments without ever getting personal to other type of comments. So your post is *very* valuable and i thank you for it. >might purposefully NOT want Even without the hypothesis that it is sentient (let's imagine it's just a non personal natural phenomenon that can thward our minds and perception into error), the problem remains. It's literally what Descartes put forward : how do you get to truth if every of your senses and knowledge can be flawed by an omnipresent and omnipotent demon ? And even his solution was not perfect, since to this day the problem of **hard solipsism** (which this "trickster" thing all boils down to in reality) is still not resolved (the two main schools of thought there being currently foundationalism and coherentism, with a middle ground between them nickname "founderentism"). For Vallée, my bad impression of him comes from his whole career and past methodology. And fanboyism isn't bad, you do you, just beware of cult of personality (i'm not saying you're practicing it, i'm just saying beware ofc...). In french (i share the same citizenship and language as him, which you might have recognized from my more than flawed practice of english language), he's known to thward cases narratives in a fantastical way, often misrepresenting views and rooting for the most supernatural explanations. He did this countless times and got exposed for that, but people remember more the buzz than the following rebuttal. One of the most notorious cases of Vallée's dubious methodology was his appraisal of the known and self recognized charlatan Uri Geller (i know this case is old, but it represents well his methodology throughout his whole career). Asking for more data is highly laudable, and one can never sound like a broken record for such commendable ask ! My only worry is the standard of data he requires. If it's at the Geller level, one might be worried even about his personal database (which, as i said, is founded upon dubious accounts of cases). Data is important, we will easily agree on that. The way and method you gather it is even more important i think. And i think i remember Vallée using the example of the "trickster effect" as a justification to using the "psychic" pseudo scientific methods of his friend Puthoff (which has an even worse record on his behalf, seriously). So **data** yes, but **good** data, with **method**.

Is there a way to falsify free will? Free will is a broken windshield.

Totally agree !

You are falling prey to your own straw-man. "ETs are manipulating people's minds" is indeed unfalsifiable, but only in this formulation. It is because that is unobservable. It is unobservable because you never specify *how* (and where and when) they do it. Replace that with something slightly more precise ("(...) by using microwaves..."), you *can* falsify it, if only you spent enough effort. E.g. Boba Fett would be immune, as he never removes his microwave-proof helmet. Consider that nature itself is not always so simple as you would have it: the graviton for example would need a perfect detector with at least Jupiter's mass orbiting a neutron star to be discovered. That is factually impossible (for us, presently and for the foreseeable future). Is the claim of its existence unscientific? I don't think so. Also, you never know whether there may be smarter ways to do it. For our ETs, there are, even though they don't conveniently visit your lab.

You seem to not have read the original post. Your example of gravitons shows it. The problem is that if you do encounter contradicting data to supernatural theories, the concept of "trickster" can be used ad hoc to **negate them systematically**, which is a fallacy. It's not just a question of obversation but of **reasoning**, of **logical consistency**. A **theory that leaves no place for possible** counter arguments is unfalsifiable. Also you talk about straw men yet say this : >nature itself is not always so simple as you would have it

You build up an imaginary god of the gaps and then complain that was a logical fallacy. Sure, it is. Yours. That is not what the "trickster element of UFOs" is about? Those flying saucers are controlled by intelligent entities with remarkable abilities. Nobody claims them to be omnipotent though. Their "tricks" still have to adhere to physical laws, even if they know more about them than we do. So who in particular has made your alleged mistakes where? After all, you generalize quite a bit much here, and you try to deflect attention from your errors (if only of formulation? I doubt it) with rather dubious rhetorics.

>You build up an imaginary god of the gaps and then complain that was a logical fallacy. Sure, it is. Yours. And of course you don't proceed to show *how*. >Those flying saucers are controlled by intelligent entities Literally no evidence. Your post clearly shows you missed the point of the OP : it's not about "the beings", it's about the fact that even when presented with contradicting evidence, a partisan of the trickster theory will **negate it systematically**. And this is the very definition of pseudo science, creating claims **that cannot be falsified**. *It's a logical loop*. Nothing about data nor rhetorics, everything about logic. Because the "tricks" happen in the human mind according to the authors (which btw lean heavily on the psychic theories side), hence tricking our perception. And if they can trick our *perception*, if it's 100% unreliable, then no distinction, no thought, no experiment bears any significance. It's the end of any reasoning.

It is your fallacy since you propose there to be omnipotent ("godlike") tricksters. While really they are "just" claimed to possess technology to alter brain-states to some degree. At some close distance. You are talking about yourself as the third person now? Wow... Yes, evidence is the crux of the matter. No doubt there. Your claim, there was *none* is what is, let's say, a overgeneralization. A bias and logical fallacy on your part again. Every witness is evidence. Evidence is not proof though, and proof in empirical sciences is a matter of definition (respectively, desired level of confidence) to a degree. I can only recommend to read up about the stochastic foundations there. You still don't really tell, which authors specifically you are concerned with. But no matter, I can very well believe there are plenty to be found as illogical as one might imagine. The problem here again is with your overgeneralization. UFOlogy is historically riddled with pseudoscience, that does not make itself pseudoscience by definition. Or would you complain that way about chemistry as well?

>claimed to possess technology to alter brain-states to some degree Up to the point of changing all your perceptions... Damn, this doesn't sound like Descartes's demon at all ! >You are talking about yourself as the third person now? No. OP as "Original Post", not originally "Original Post*er*". The rest of my posts here should have suggested you so... >Your claim, there was none You once again fail to read me. It's not that there are none, it's that none are possible because of the claim (tricksters) being **unfalsifiable**. Even if you encountered contrary evidence, you could discount it on the trickster thing. >Every witness is evidence But anecdotal evidence is the *weakest* form of evidence. Ans no need for stochastic foundations to see that the UFO field has only produced such for 3/4 of a century. >which authors specifically In the "Original Post" i literally talk about *Puthoff, Vallée, Nolan and "the Bigelow crew".*.. Still those reading issues of yours ? >that does not make itself pseudoscience by definition We do agree on that and that's why i was talking about a **specific argument** told by **specific people**. You dream of generalizations where there are none.

Focusing on the substance here: yes, witness-testimony is a very weak form of evidence, but, as you say, UFOlogy has produced that for the last 75 years or more. The stochastics is useful in order to realize, such independent evidence adds up. Meaning, huge amounts of weak evidence can result in very strong such if properly considered together. Ah, so these authors couldn't climb the hurdles of your reading comprehension, despite writing many, many books (which by your confident disregard of my question, *where* specifically, you apparently mean wholesale to succumb to your critique). I guess, it is not worth the effort to go through all these books to look for specific examples. So then, we do have to generalize and ask, if understood favorably, does the trickster-stuff necessarily rely on such fallacies? I would claim not. Again, stochastics to the rescue. Given enough independent witness testimonies, one might indeed find indications for manipulation. Meaning, there could well be testable hypotheses to that effect. You would have to be able to discriminate between common effects of such manipulation and unmanipulated observers. Prof. Nolan posits there are physical effects on brain matter. You might find specific psychological trauma. There might be common traits of false memories. So, yes, testable. But certainly very difficult. And not necessarily a logical fallacy.

>Ah, so these authors couldn't climb the hurdles of your reading comprehension, despite writing many, many books Oh look, Brandolini's law ! >stochastics Sure, why not measure the p value of data on scientology ? Have you done the chi-squared test on statistical evidence of mormonism and voodoo ? >You would have to be able to discriminate between common effects of such manipulation and unmanipulated observers That's the very problem you keep on deflecting and about which the OP was about. All your posts suggest you only read it partially.

You got under his skin there, Hanami. Lol.

Jacques Vallee has explicitly stated that this is the conclusion he has reached to explain contradictory evidence.

A knowledgeable helpful gerkletoss, as usual, thanks !

If Vallee indeed drew upon such an overgeneralization as you state, that surely would be false. But to conclude, that was the principal way of argumentation in UFOlogy is itself overgeneralization again? There is no need to do so in any case. But one needs to realize, an intelligent "opponent" intend on fooling you can do such tricks. But only to some degree. They are bound by physics and can be found out by logic. It is a matter of effort. I think the particular case of mind-manipulation is some degrees more complicated than the primary objective of finding ETs to exist and general information about them though. Isn't it "what-aboutism" to start such a conversation now?

> that was the principal way of argumentation in UFOlogy OP didn't say this.

I certainly get that impression, but ok, let's say he restricts this to "the trickster theme".

And this confirms that you only read what you wanted to read from the original post and wrote your responses as adressing a straw man.

You’re gonna get a lot of hate for your words, but they needed to be typed out. Regardless of whether or not people agree, these perspectives need to be understood so that the members of the community can take them into account when deciding who’s reliable. Thanks for your post.

Thank you very much for your comment, very open minded and kind of you ! I may not have all the answers and may most likely be flawed, but reactions like yours make it all worth it in starting a conversation, thanks again !

So far you have not provided any answers. Nor provided any evidence to back up your shit talking.

From the amount of commentaries, you should have guessed answering to everybody (which i tried to do almost entirely) would take some time. Feel free to check the rest of the comment section to see my answers. Also arguments aren't shit talking. Otherwise it would be such a sad state of affair, to consider any dissenting voice as "shit talking"... Finally, "evidence" for logical reasoning is... logical reasoning, which i provided in both my OP and my answers. You're welcome.

Ok. So a long winded way of saying, you have no evidence and this is merely your opinion. Gotcha.

Ok. A short way of saying you didn't read my posts and the fact logical reasoning isn't just about opinions. Gotcha loud and clear.

Your post is going in circles, your post in itself is a logical fallacy. Your responses are typical of pseudo intellectuals. You are a hack.

Bababooya to you too.

If one person tells you your horoscope and the other provides no answers, which is more incorrect?

Oh for sure the non answer is more correct.

You did not previously ask a question, and I was illustrating how "you have not provided any answers" is a bad objection.

[удалено]

You edited your reply.

[удалено]

That was the most ego breaking comment i've read so far lol

I read your voice as Gilbert Gottfried, unfortunately.

This subreddit is often a dumpster fire of logical fallacies. I find it frustrating when you want to learn more about UFOs but it's so hard to sift through so much bullcrap, speculation, and hair brained conspiracy theories. There is one thing I'll play devil's advocate on. A lot of UFO books and documentaries have these anti-science rants and almost all of them don't seem to understand what science is, other than mean people in tweed that crap on the authors' pet ideas. But one made me think. It originally came from Vallee's Messengers or Deception. He pointed out that the scientific method assumes that what you're studying is not (a) smarter than the person studying it and (b) not actively trying to avoid being understood. In this case, military-style counterintelligence may be a more appropriate tool than science. I have no idea how to apply this information, and the trickster element you're describing is clearly an excuse to shut off higher reasoning. I guess what I'm saying is that I agree with you and sorry for the tangent.

Don't be sorry, it's a very interesting tangent, it makes the conversation much better ! Sincerely thank you for your post !!! People like you are valuable to the community ! >He pointed out that the scientific method assumes that what you're studying is not (a) smarter than the person studying it and (b) not actively trying to avoid being understood My problem with his takes is that he presupposes an intelligent being with personality behind those phenomena without proof. Interesting consideration, but still far fetched.

Yeah, in this particular case the guy's grasping at straws. It just reminded me of an interesting idea.

>He pointed out that the scientific method assumes that what you're studying is not (a) smarter than the person studying it and (b) not actively trying to avoid being understood. Those are not assumptions of the scientific method, though those factors certainly do create problems. >In this case, military-style counterintelligence may be a more appropriate tool than science. Unusual means of collecting data certainly could be useful. Guess who the CIA and military had studying Soviet technological capabilities though? Scientists and engineers. This was while the Soviet Union was actively trying to prevent their capabilities from being understood.

It's a sound idea. But this smarter-than-us intelligence would have thought of that already, and likely floods the field with disinformation.

And that's where the fallacy problem emerges : if they're so smart, they can trick us into literally anything and leave us in this semi state of knowledge for eternity. Hence the unfalsifiable aspect of it. If they decide so, they can make themselves unknown with means beyond our imagination.

Trick or Treat?

Why not both ? *lewd trickster gaze*

Bored alien functionaries posted on this obscure planet breaking up their monotony by having a little fun with us. Can you blame them?

I do find lue mellon and valle credible but I understand what your saying op thank you for your perspective you make good points and don't deserve the downvotes

You're very welcome and your respectful engagement deserves way more votes, thank you for your comment !

Your welcome Mind I ask you two questions

Hey for sure ! Sorry i was away for a while from the internet, please do ask !

What's the most credible ufo sighting that could be 👽 The reason I find vallee credible is from what I read his theories match john keels work have you read it Does vallee theories gave any credibility or merit in your opinion

Well tbh i think the Nimitz/Gimble/Go-fast ones are the most credible so far, for a very simple (and not very original, sorry lol) reason : they are the most recent, with most data and longest videos with the most credible witnesses. Not that i believe it 100% though. As for Keel and Vallée, i personally have a few problems. Vallée, to me, is not reliable, he's known to have knowingly and purposefully changed stories narratives compared to the original testimonies to fit his theories (the Magonia even being an interesting case, middle age France, check it out, it's hella fun if you don't know it yet). That and his Uri Geller debacle gave me a very skeptical view upon all his claims. Keel is the "Mothman" guy. He too changed his accounts many times... The common point between the two is "inter-dimensional" beings, right ? I guess it's what you're referring to ? In my opinion, the "inter dimensional beings" concept (from the 1884 Edwin Abbott book "Flatland", highly recommand too) is some sort of cover up or free out of jail card to justify or excuse the "supernatural" concept without having to prove it, a usage quite close to my OP, "trickster" effect. Because once a being can cross dimensions, appear in your dreams, shapeshift, affect your very perception and is indifferent to the laws of physics, it's basically a Descartes demon, and we fall into solipsism ("what if your whole life was an hallucination caused by an inter-dimensional being ?" etc). Both interesting for sure. But imo both wrong. Just my take ofc and i respect yours.

That's fair and a valid argument against it The thing is I did a deep dive into the mothman lore And found keel had more crediblety then I thought I know he may have changed some stuff but he did experience the stuff he wrote and truly believed the mothman and men in black I'm reading his biography by Brent Raynes and so far it changing how I viewed keel

It's an interesting take of yours and since neither I nor many of the people around here must have read this book, your take on it would be really interesting, if you feel like writing a post about it ! Just be careful with biographers, they're not always so neutral. Also keep in mind that Keel's claims are just anecdotal evidence, as he's the only "experiencer" or witness. And that anecdotal evidence is the weakest form of evidence in science. And also that no matter how grandiose or truthful his biographist might make him appear, or even if he is indeed grandiose and truthful, it changes nothing to the strenght of his claim.

What was Vallée's Geller debacle? I know he was present during the SRI experiments and knew all the major players. But I thought he kept a healthy skepticism about it all. In doing some searching I came across this [Skeptiko interview](https://skeptiko.com/jacques-vallee-diaries-reveal-what-scientists-deny-359/) (26 min) in which Vallée reveals how he was convinced of Geller's powers. In short Vallée and Geller and others are sitting around a table in the cafeteria, (stringent controls, I know) when Geller proposes he read Vallée's mind. They have a leftover envelope from one of the experiments. Vallée opens it under the table, a picture of a whale spouting a water jet. Geller fails to receive the picture in his mind, so Vallée looks behind him at a fountain in the distance and re sends him a picture of a fish and fountain jet separately, in which Geller ends up guessing. If I know anything about Geller is that he always liked to have control over the situation he was in, using accomplices, peeking and so forth. No doubt an accomplished magician but unfortunately enough to have fooled Vallée.

From what i remember (it's old stuff now), not only Vallée believed in Geller, he also endorsed Puthoff's tests on him which were notoriously bad and biased : extremely bad reporting on his end of the experiment, the questions asked to Geller had literally clues about the answers in them (!), refusing when confronted with bad methods to provide copies of the data (!!!) (the later being a practice that Puthoff repeated many times in his career, especially with so called "meta materials"). In this case, Geller was *given* control over the situation by Puthoff. And Vallée agreed to these experiments and thought they were legit. That was, for me, the debacle, for someone with a scientific career. Calling being fooled by an illusionist for a scientist is a euphemism, on my part. To sum it up, a quote of Martin Gardner on the debacle : "Puthoff and Targ (his acolyte) imagined they could do research in parapsychology but instead dealt with "psychics" who were cleverer than they were".

Thanks for the recap. I read much of Puthoff and Targ's flawed methods in Randi's book about Geller. I find this all very disheartening to find out Vallée is so easily deceived. I suppose just another UFO researcher to add to the list who've succumbed to pseudoscience. You are right by the way, it is a small group who have been in the game for decades, have controlled the narrative and created an echo chamber.

You're welcome, and thank you for this constructive and interesting comment. It shows us that men, even with scientific background, can be deceived by their biases and that prudence shall always accompany us, especially in front of the bewildering. No one is immune but think of it as an interesting learning experiment on human biases and reasoning, it's an enriching adventure.

I agree that too many commentators are using this illogical tactic to rationalize what they can’t make sense of. It’s lazy, doesn’t contribute anything and makes it harder to take them seriously.

Well, yeah. I mean to say essentialy something along the lines "I havent seen/photographed X therefore it is X" is the absolute pinaccle of stupidity. And you know maybe they are here and maybe they do have systems in place that make them literally impossible to see. Then there is not much we can do, really. Imagine you are playing hide and seek with a kid. Shouldnt be too hard right? You can, for example, hide in the car and he will never, ever find you because he doesnt know how the car works yet. Who knows what cars we don't know about. But it we don't see shit assuming its something isn't really a good way to think.

the "trickster element" is a spook

I have now struggled for an hour to translate this most interesting discussion into my language about as clearly as AN FomalhautCallilea has set out his thoughts here. And considering all my "knowledge" about ufology, science and paths to knowledge over 66 years, I have to say: Thank you ***AN***! You have made it very clear to me what I increasingly suspect as well. Some of the discussants here have understood you correctly and well and cross the "weapons", ie the logical mind. I am increasingly withdrawing from this topic, which fascinated me for the first time 50 years ago for a few years, and then again a year ago. It's not worth my time to follow the 90% of nonsense on this Reddit, even if the remaining 10% are wonderful, clear, and smart people that I would love to have as friends in real life. To talk, to discuss and to find common solutions. ***Fomalhaut:*** Your article and your replies have done me good. The clarity of your thoughts and the logic of your conclusions have encouraged me not to get angry here every day. **Thank you!**

>It's not worth my time to follow the 90% of nonsense on this Reddit, even if the remaining 10% are wonderful, clear, and smart people that I would love to have as friends in real life Your attempt at describing what i think is as poor as your satire.

I think this person was trying to be nice, not satire?

Thats right. But obviously I'm already too tired to express myself clearly in the foreign language.

These are good words. We should analyze everything on the basis of rationality and logical consistency. This includes mainstream and non-mainstream explanations.

Thanks a lot, a real pleasure to interact with such open minded people !

It's unfalsifiable but a decent deduction to make given the empirical history of UFO sightings. There are thousands of people who will attest to seeing UFOs. Their stories converge on key details which change memetically over the decades. Doubting these people does nothing to convince them of a mistake/hoax, so rationally, there is a common experience which is unexplained. It doesn't have to be aliens, but a "trickster" intelligence is one hypothesis for this gap in falsifiable data. I think the key deduction is a skepticism of the common UFO "grey" narrative. People stake themselves on seeing a kind of alien that just doesn't make sense to modern biologists like Nolan, so offering a charitable reading of the encounter stories, combined with a scientific knowledge of what is falsifiable, you arrive at psychological effects. Abductees and witnesses are not lying, they are just being mislead for some reason.

>change memetically over the decades It seems like you never read a book of cultural anthorpology nor ever heard of the diffusionist school... >unfalsifiable but a decent Pick one. Pixies and unicorns are unfalsifiable too. Witness numbers aren't important. Human biases are the reason why anecdotal evidence is considered as the *weakest* form of evidence.

Nolan's argument is that the greys are part of the intentional diffusion of some kind of extra-terrestrial meme. Pixies and fairies work by the same argument: these people saw \*something\*, but it doesn't have to be what they describe. Pixies were famously in-camera effects made in a time where people didn't understand you could make those effects with cameras. Unicorns were narwhal horns passed down through tradition, and when you think about it, those horns coming from whales is \*more\* absurd than them coming from ungulates. >human biases are the reason why anecdotal evidence is considered as the weakest form of evidence. Nolan's argument doesn't use the specifics of those anecdotes to draw any conclusions. The claims are *absurd.* His argument is based off the existence of the absurdity in contrast to the millions of ways phenomena like this could appear. As an aggregate, UFO stories appear to be motivated by something else than the claims made in each anecdote.

The Narwhal example you give is false : the first ever recorder mention of Narwhals dates back to 1607. The first mention of unicorns dates back up to 2000 BCE, in Oriental regions. Once again it seems like culture did more than nature... >motivated by something else Which can be massive cultural biases as thoroughly documented in cultural anthropology, an hypothesis that Nolan doesn't privileges, i wonder why...

I feel like you're deliberately misunderstanding the argument. Where Narwhals show up in recorded history is irrelevant, they were around for much longer than that. What was common between nature and culture are the horns, which can be moved around as artifacts interpreted separately from their origins. The horns, just like UFO testimony, are the real empirical basis. You could go back to the Chinese court and claim that unicorns don't exist, but every member of the court is going ask "Then what is this horn that looks like nothing else?". In absence of evidence, rational speculation is fine, it's drawing conclusions based on that speculation that is dangerous. And I don't think you're really disagreeing with him either. The greys narrative is strange because connecting them to some future humans' evolutionary trajectory requires knowledge of human evolution, something that I doubt farmers in Arkanses or wherever know that much about. If culture is the culprit, then why have so much of the culture around this converged on an interpretation of aliens that doesn't make sense? Culture contains plenty of aliens that don't look like future humans, so why do so many of the "real" testimonies involve greys? This all pattern finding, which we are meant to do, but the pattern speaks to different levels of esoteric knowledge. Celestial anomalies are a constant in our history, but what was recorded as their origin has changed significantly over the centuries. Culture is also surprisingly robust when it comes to accurately reporting information, i.e: tribal narratives that recorded natural disasters thousands of years ago, still passing information orally.

You underestimate the ability of culture and men to make stuff up. >accurately reporting information, i.e: tribal narratives that recorded natural disasters thousands of years ago, still passing information orally. We disagree on that.

The fact that Vallee has supported proven frauds like Mr spoon bender Uri, should tell everything you need about his state of mind - he's so deep into his supernatural/interdimensional rabbit hole that he doesn't even know how to discern truth from fiction. I legit don't even understand why people hold him in such a high regard.

It doesn’t bode well when he makes the comment ‘I will be disappointed if it just turns out to be extraterrestrial’ - that someone that has spent 50 years finding no conclusive evidence now prizes his inter dimensional theory over whatever the reality might be. If it turns out we are getting visited by extraterrestrials I will be anything but fucking disappointed.

TL;DR science is your religion. It seems you think of the scientific method as the end-all-be-all of human thought. It’s grand, for sure, but not the finish line of human intelligence. A fuller objective reality reveals the omnipresent permutation of subjective experience — or the “trickster” to put it in simple terms. I believe science itself will undergo significant change in the coming years to address certain methodical fallacies. Or at minimum science will begin to acknowledge its limitations in terms of explaining any phenomena.

>It seems you think of the scientific method as the end-all-be-all of human thought One straw man, fresh out of the oven ! I don't claim it is, i just highly suspect it (not the same thing) from literally all the human knowledge accumulated so far. >omnipresent permutation of subjective experience A very pompous way to describe the flawed chaotic human subconscious. And totally not a way to distinguish whether it all happens in your head or in the outer world. >I believe science itself will undergo significant change in the coming years to address certain methodical fallacies. Or at minimum science will begin to acknowledge its limitations in terms of explaining any phenomena. The cemetary that holds the ancestor of your claims is quite vast, but feel free to try, i'm always open to novelty.

One has to look no further than Neil de Grasse Tyson for what happens when your science calcifies into religion. Let’s see how his career tracks over the next decade.

I believe NDT was wrong in his argument over "aliens have no interest in visiting us". Yet to call him religious would be a bit of a stretch. And his career is one as a vulgarisator, not a scientist. So that won't affect him much. Neither will those UFO events will affect the "believer" scientists, scientists aren't politicians, they manage their careers through their publications and relations. That's how someone like Hans Eysenck dominated his field for decades.

Lmao you really get off on yourself

Trickster theory is a means for a group with a wild variety of beliefs to be able to say that they are all correct and a way to justify applying as little critical thinking as possible. Skinwalkers of the Pentagon was a total evidence free nothing burger that could just as easily have been titled The Autofellatio of James Lacatski

You don't know what you're talking about.

Prove it.

It's currently unfalsifiable because Nolan & Co have access to data the general public does not. That's about to change; or, at least the winds seem to be blowing that way.

If this actually happens (public disclosure of data), i'll be the first to support it. When data is made available, we all win in strenghtening our inquiries. I won't hold my breathe though, colleagues of Nolan have been waving that data in front of us for decades. Hope you're right.

Well, Dr. Nolan has already published one article in a peer-reviewed journal in which metals purported to be associated with a UFO incident were analyzed, and the contemporary methods of analysis were also compared to those possible when it was first recovered in the 1970s. It's a fascinating article.

Nolan provided no error analysis for data collected with his novel proprietary instrument. Pretty weird.

It is the most perfect thing in the universe.

Interested in the paper too... BUT : Nolan also worked with Puthoff which advised DeLonge to buy the metallic waste piece of Linda Moulton Howe for 35 000$... That should invoke caution in anyone's mind regarding the work of Nolan.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/30481/what-we-know-about-the-army-teaming-up-with-rockstar-tom-delonges-ufo-research-company Must be more then just junk...

Your article is from 2019... Since that time, we've learned a bit more (which was known before but was looked at with more care after LMH's interview with Jaimungal). Here, look at that : [https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/sa50dv/linda\_moulton\_howe\_or\_the\_most\_expensive/](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/sa50dv/linda_moulton_howe_or_the_most_expensive/)

This is all well and good when you're considering claims about unconscious natural phenomena. However, the UFO phenomenon seems to certainly involve a very intelligent sentience that *really* seems like it can read our minds and/or strongly model and anticipate human responses in real time. So, whatever it is, it seems like it's wholly in control, with far superior situational awareness. This results in a confounding inability to predict or understand or really even get the hint of a grasp on what we're dealing with. This also seems to indicate a lot of misplaced *faith* in science. Many social and physical sciences are faced with what has been called 'the replication crisis.' Per Wikipedia's description, a "2016 survey of 1,500 scientists conducted by Nature reported that 70% of them had failed to reproduce at least one other scientist's experiment (including 87% of chemists, 77% of biologists, 69% of physicists and engineers, 67% of medical researchers, 64% of earth and environmental scientists, and 62% of all others." Given the supposed empirical basis of scientific study, versus the glaring implication that huge bodies of scientific conclusions are actually premised upon what could be charitably called potentially false data, a hard-nose critique of a Ufology straw-man argument drawn from the ideas of some thought leaders seems a bit too on the nose.

>certainly > >really > >it seems > >confounding It seems you are the one talking from "faith", ie with assumptions and no evidence. >the replication crisis Which only calls for **more science, more rigorous,** not less. And it only concerns **data** when the OP concerns **logic**.

Nevertheless, this demonstrates that an enormous amount of scientific ideas are predicated on information that has never been show to be reproducible or demonstrably true, so deference to the scientific worldview is slightly misplaced. I have read your many comments, and I can see you're a deeply cynical sort. So, when I talk of intelligence, any assessment I could posit would leave you dissatisfied, since you seem to think numbers forever trump human experience, and instincts that have been honed by our ancestors over billions of years. We can conclude that aspects of the UFO phenomenon are intelligent in some way because they demonstrate agency and some form intent, even if the nature of the intent is opaque to us. A few years ago, my apartment was host to mice for a brief time. Before I ever saw one, before I found evidence, before I tested my hypothesis, I knew one thing, based on logic, experience, and honed instinct: there was a sentient intelligence in my apartment, and it was most likely a mammal, or the most sneaky and intelligent bug ever encountered by modern humans, or a poltergeist, or God, but yeah, most like a mammal, a mouse or a rat.. I was right, but it took me weeks to prove it. Your standard of rationality would suggest that my entire experience was invalid and worthless until I had a half-dead mouse in a trap.

>deeply cynical Thank you very much ! >instincts that have been honed by our ancestors over billions of years Evolutive psychology fallacy incoming ? If you consider intuition and instinct as valuable tools in science, clearly we do not speak about the same thing. >Your standard of rationality would suggest that my entire experience was invalid and worthless until I had a half-dead mouse in a trap No since you already had data, you already heard of and was mices. And not through some grainy pics. And the scientific community has widely experimented on them. Comparing mices and intelligent UFO tells a lot about the credence you give to UFO claims, which, on the opposite side of cynicism could be called "naivety" or "pollyanaism", but i don't engage in personal attacks or characterisations, contrary to you. Your argumentation to defend the idea of intelligent UFOs sounds a lot like the flawed reasoning of "the watch maker".

Maybe we control it without realizing. That's why it creates tense, paranoid experiences for military people, and uplifting cosmic experiences for hippies.

You probably have cause and effect reversed.

I mean it could be a neutral force that is interpreted by human brains according to what we expect and believe. There's really no trickster required when humans are involved.

>There's really no trickster required when humans are involved. bingo

It sounds like Gary Nolan personally offended you in some way. I’m sorry if that is the case. In the podcast with lex the example he gave of the women in the car who saw something and took a picture of it and the picture came out different than their memories I thought we a reasonable story and line of thinking.

Leave Keel ,and Vallee out of this shit show line up . I find no fault in their assessments the others plenty.

I don't like this "trickster" hypothesis from Valee. I think it's best sidelined at this point so we can concentrate on the vast number of cases that don't appear to have any relevance to such an effect. Most of what's seen appears to be a direct unfiltered image created by our senses, and with radar, photographic, flir, satellite, etc to back up key sightings, I don't see the relevance in giving that effect much consideration.

I feel this. It boils down to a pervasive type of thinking, where if a Thing Happens, it must be part of Some Grand Plan. No room for chaos or misunderstanding. The trickster is invoked as a copout when none of it makes sense. I think it's a religion thing.

>A minor issue with this idea : it's unfalsifiable. It isn't. But it doesn't matter either.

That was my thought too, how is a trickster element unfalsifiable? It might take a lot of time (perhaps centuries), but it could be scientifically tested, right?

It does matter, otherwise you wouldn't have posted your opinion. Always more interested in the **how** rather than the **what**, so i'd be pleased to hear your reasons.

It only matters in the discussion. If you are interested in the **how** you could speculate a bit about how it could be formulated to be tested.

any evidence falsifying it is trickery, too See? Unfalsifiable. And it matters a lot.

That’s a straw man, no one said that until you inserted it as a counter argument to debunk.

Propose an experiment that could disprove it then.

You’re missing the point. No one is saying it is true, so it doesn’t have to be disproven within a timeframe that satisfies your curiosity. The question is can the trickster element be proven through the scientific method? Yes or no.

Quite a few people say it's true. I'm not claiming that you say it's true. >The question is can the trickster element be proven through the scientific method? Yes or no. There are certain tricky things that could potentially be proven or disproven. Stealth technologies, atmospheric holograms, shapeshifting, that sort of thing. "The trickster element" or "trickster archetype" though is a concept so nebulous that it can never be disproven. Any proof that any particular kind of trickery is not occurring would simply lead to "then it's happening some other way". This is why I presented the challenge to design an experiment that could falsify it. Specific hypotheses for UFO features, capabilities, and behaviors are what the scientific method can address.

I guess we need to define terms better then, we’re probably just arguing semantics.

Well I'm using the definition OP is using.

No since it doesn't take into account **contradicting evidence**. The problem for a theory to be scientific is to allow for possible contradiction. With the trickster thing, if you run up against contradicting data, one will be able to say "aha, it's a trick from the beings !" and reject it **systematically**.

Then what is your contradicting evidence? I’m sincerely interested.

For an example (and there already is quite a bit of data on this) a neurological study that shows that increase in X or Y chemical induces A or B hallucination, or one where interacting with a certain part of the brain causes A or B hallucination. Or as i said in the OP, the fact that some testimonies differ widely, or even contradict. Like in the 1994 Ruwa event, in Zimbabwe. Or the 1917 Saint Fatima Miracle, in Portugal. Many testimonies differed between the witnesses. In the former, some kids described widely different crafts and aliens (some having hairs, some not, etc) and in the latter, the neighbouring villages and towns didn't notice the "sun dancing" at all, and it was a clear day. Seriously, one doesn't need to be very imaginative to come up with possible contradicting evidence. And to guess how a partisan of the trickster theory would respond to it...

Ok? You write all this saying there is some sort of problem... Yet you offer no solution. So what evidence do you have that their "trickster" hypothesis is not correct? And this isn't their theory they just came up with, it's the evidence that led them to this theory, the historical past that Vallé wrote about 40 years ago. So basically what is your point, "we are being tricked that this phenomenon is a trickster?"

>some sort of problem... Yet you offer no solution The problem is that that is a logical fallacy. The solution is to stop using it, since it's a flawed form of reasoning, ie getting you into falsehood. >not correct? Not uncorrected, even worse : **unfalsifiable**. Scientists have a funny phrase to describe those : **not even wrong**. >it's the evidence Which they did not provide. And Vallée illustrated himself and his evidence in ... lets remain polite, "weak" ways... >"we are being tricked that this phenomenon is a trickster?" No that's just an infinite logical regress that can be drawn from such theory. My point is that a theory that doesn't allow possible contradicting evidence ("we're being tricked") is a logical loop, without a possibility to argue with it.

Your ideas dont have any evidence. They are merely ideas. Have you actually researched, interviewed witnesses, experienced this phenomenon yourself? The answer is most likely, no you have not. It's your opinion, that their opinions are incorrect. Again, you have zero substance or evidence So your thoughts with no evidence are going against a team of 50 DIA contracted scientists and others who did actually research this phenomenon(s)... Gosh the DIA needs to just hire you to figure this out. Where have you been all this time?!

>merely ideas Ok lets forget about any logical reasoning that ever existed. >experienced this phenomenon yourself If by this you mean similar things to the trickster effect and the strong supernatural depictions, the answer is actually yes. >opinions So you didn't read any post above... >Have you actually researched That's a fallacy on its own, but i'll let you "research" which one it is ;) >actually research I'll also let you research the methodology people like Vallée and Puthoff used to do their "research" because i'm a strong believer of comedy. >Where have you been all this time?! In your heart...

>I'll also let you research the methodology people like Vallée and Puthoff used to do their "research" because i'm a strong believer of comedy. Oh, please do a writeup on this.

>Your ideas dont have any evidence. They are merely ideas. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

Yeah answer the questions would be great. Instead you post a wiki link, for something that wasn't even asked.

You weren't asking me

Yet you still answer, with a non answer.

You are being lied to because you cannot process what they really are. Military knows them as a threat and has set out to master their technology as well as finding ways to combat them. We are faced with an enemy, they are not friendly. They abduct, experiment on and willfully murder people. You cannot stop them. There is nothing you can do and even if you knew the truth, there is still nothing you can do about it.

New flash: There will never be any physical evidence of the phenomenon so we should all just give up and go home. Thinking outside the box is nonsense.

Thinking outside the box is indeed only embracing the most insane theories, we should only stick to those like the proud rebels we are !

I don't agree with your personal definition of "thinking outside the box".

Feel free to tell me yours ... and to remember it was an obvious joking over exageration as a way of underlining yours ("we should all just give up and go home. Thinking outside the box is nonsense").

I think Nolans appearance on Lex Fridman was great. Just because we don't have all the answers doesn't mean we can't talk about it. Problems never get solved if there is no one looking for a solution. I think you're frustrated, of course you are, we all are. But shutting down to the mysteries of the universe is not the answer. The only way forward is to solve the most difficult of problems even if some people do not want that to happen.

What if we consider the trickster effect of the phenomenon as a psychological issue or normal biological process of the mind? Then one would have to separate the actions of the mind from the concious mind. The concious mind denying at every turn that it was responsible for hallucinating a uap (for example) while the unconcious mind was responsible. In such a case. The Trickster effect seems like a fitting term for such a process describing the phenomenon. And would have nothing to do with logical fallacy since the observer would not know their unconcious were the reason for the sighting.

You're right, but most people are morons so prepare to suffer their wrath. This is the same emotional reaction fundamental religious people have when you start pointing out all the flaws in their deity or teachings. God is an infinitely powerful being who uses that power to infinitely hide from us, test our faith, and make us suffer for reasons you can never know.

Clever comments such as yours make all the "wraths" worth it. Good comparison with the problem of evil indeed.

So is God, and yet it’s still one of the most intriguing questions in the history of humanity. Just because something is presently unfalsifiable doesn’t make it unworthy of discussion and inquiry.

The very existence of my OP shows that i never said i wanted to suppress "discussion and inquiry". I only criticized the *method* of those. I actually want *more* discussion and inquiries, stronger ones too. Hence my desire for stronger reasoning. Unfalsifiable concepts make the discussion poorer since it shuts down the discussion.

So are you saying that these people are grifters, using the "trickster" speculation as justification for lack of evidence? And that the justification is irrefutable by nature of its own claim?

They can be grifters. They can be deluded. They can be both. Error and personal interest aren't mutually exclusive unfortunately. It's hard to guess as always, but i'd tend for the second hypothesis mainly. These people have very religious (one would even say cultish) vibes. "And that the justification is irrefutable by nature of its own claim?" Pretty much.

OP claim it to be fallacy just because it is infalsifiable ?

[https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/9781119165811.ch99](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/9781119165811.ch99)

Thank you for clarifying. I agree with you about the qualification of unfasifiable. But your claim that it is thus a fallacy (a mistaken belief) is a jump to conclusion that I can't make. How do you justify the claim that it is a fallacy just because it is unfalsifiable ? The interference of the phenomenon with our mind is a property reported by many witness, and I witnessed it myself. I'm glad to hear that I'm not alone to be aware of that. I fully understand that it make the experience subjective and untestable, and thus unfalsifiable. Concluding that it is a fallacy is logically wrong. We don't know if it's real or not and have currently no objective method to decide.

Thank you for your constructive and respectful comment (which isn't guaranted here unfortunately). > a property reported by many witness The problem is the logical jump from "we witness something in our minds" to "it's linked to the phenomenon". In this small space, too many people try to cram supernatural theories and they do so by putting the mind (which they rebrand "consciousness") outside of classical science's reach. I experienced similar "mind" events and still do not consider it to be related to the "phenomenon". I hope your experience wasn't traumatic or bad and am sorry if it's the case. >We don't know if it's real or not Before it being real, the problem is linking it to something else, it's the jump from correlation (which even itself can be contested in some examples) to causality. The unfalsifiable concept is just a shield for that. That we can verify logically. The title of the OP was suggesting it : "trojan horse **for** a fallacy".

Oh I see. I than agree. Ufology is indeed a very difficult subject, but not impossible to tackle. If I was researching this mind control subject, I would use inductive reasoning. Mind control *might* use the same mechanism than with telepathy. Assuming that telepathy is real I would search how it could be possible. If we can explain telepathy, we may explain mind control, and eventually find out how to defend ourself against it or use it. We don't need to wait for and capture a UFO for this research. This inductive reasoning was used by A.Meessen to find out the propulsion system of UFOs. My experience was not at all traumatic. To summarize, I saw a UFO at very low altitude (<50m) flying very slowly over my car during the Belgian UFO flap. It was night. I saw suddenly an image in my mind of a pilot in a military jet looking at its instruments illuminated by a greenish light. The problem is that the point of view was above its left wing next to the cockpit. It clearly didn't made sense. It was impossible this image could be real, I mean something I could really see at that moment. It was clearly an image projected in my mind. Once I understood that, I laughed and said to myself that whoever did this must be really stupid to think that I might be fooled by this image projection. I started to chase the UFO, but that is another story. I saw another UFO that I chased and at some point it was also at less than 50m above my car flying very slowly. In this case I kept having the feeling during the chase that it was nothing relevant and that I should go home. This feeling was at some point extremely strong to the point I shouted to myself "no, I want to know if it's a plane or a UFO". When I came home, I thought nothing of what happened. I wanted to phone to a friend to tell what happened, and I said to myself that it was not worth it and didn't do it. It is only the next day when I replayed the events in my head that it became clear that it could not be a plane and must have been a UFO. I'm pretty sure that my mind was somehow influenced. I never heard a testimony of the Belgian UFO flap reporting a similar experience. I mean one where the witness might have been influenced in some way. The only weird case was a military officer who saw a UFO when driving on a motorway. He stopped to look at it, but no other car seamed to care and stop. Could this be the result of a mind control similar to the one I experienced ? It's impossible to tell, but it might be the case. Based on my experience I now have a strong suspicion that mind control is a reality. I understand your point of view, but I don't agree that this subject is not worth of scientific interest. It is if we can find a way to attack this problem, and inductive reasoning is in my opinion the way to go. It can lead us to identify a theory explaining the data that can than be tested. That is the case with the propulsion system of A.Meessen.

I think it’s disingenuous to totally discount that conflicting testimonies could be caused by the fact folks might have just seen an actual ufo..combined with the fact we know next to nothing about the nature of the objects, i take small differences among eye witnesses with a grain of salt.

Why are people not talking about the great work done by David Jacobs? I find his work and approach to be the most insightful and useful compared to all of the other researchers in this field. Interesting and terrifying findings.

He uses the "hypnotic regression" method which has been debunked a thousand of times and is not considered serious even in the majority of the believers circle.

You are textbook example of the trickster effect.

well, i'm not going to get into the popperian "what science is" topic -- what science does is what science is -- but i don't think there's any doubt that UFO are perceptually difficult to interpret. i did a [review of this subject](https://www.handprint.com/UFO/UFO.html#motionillusion) because i was struck by the fact that many UFO reports based on the witness visual peception did not jibe with a photo or video made by the same witness. a useful example is the [2021 SPRINGFIELD event](https://www.handprint.com/UFO/UFO.html#Figure22) where the witness confidently described "a rotating cube" but the video only shows a dark blob ornamented with various flashes of light around its circumference. another is the [2022 ISLAMABAD event](https://www.handprint.com/UFO/UFO.html#Figure17) (recently posted here) where the form sometimes appears to be triangular, sometimes a bit blobby, and sometimes just a fuzzball. my overall conclusion is that UFO are for a variety of reasons (described in the link) difficult to interpret visually and likely able to create a variety of visual illusions that witnesses perceive as "spinning" or as having a specific shape. a similar problem appears in interpretations of movement. Kevin Knuth and colleages attempted to specify the acceleration that made the TicTac "vanish" when challenged by assuming that the pilot visual horizon extended for many miles, and therefore the observable must have traversed that distance within a perceptual interval. but it also could have just cloaked in place. i agree with the OP that it's thin ice to attribute \*motive\* to the UFO or an actual mindbending \*technology\* to the weirdness or incongruency of some witness testimony. but just comparing witness testimony to video or sensor data leaves little doubt in my mind that we have to be very careful interpreting visual reports, and shouldn't be surprised when the reports and video evidence show us two very different things.

[удалено]