although one of the ‘UFOs’ has been dismissed as an “out of focus picture of a seagull having a poo.”
This long term trend of UFO mockery is a very intelligent way to keep interest and investigation at bay. Take for example the Phoenix Lights incident where the Arizona Gov. got an aide to dress up as an alien as a good and far less subtle example:
Sure, the fact that people taking pictures of UFOs can't hold a camera still to save their life has nothing to do with it.
As many disasters around the world have proven, when crazy things are actually happening people can get really good video with a simple mobile phone. It doesn't take any particular talent.
Your comment immediately reminded me of yet another "relevant xkcd": http://xkcd.com/1235/
Regarding some of the other comments here, my sense is that there are some beliefs where mockery really is the best response. (Hopefully not mean-spirited mockery, mind you.) If you engage with flat-earthers on a serious level, you inevitably wind up lending them at least a bit of an air of legitimacy (in the eyes of outsiders who may not yet be familiar with the topic in detail). If you ignore them, they can monopolize the public discussion and claim that you're afraid to face their ideas. Laughing at their ideas can be more effective in both ways, at least if handled well.
But the two things are directly connected. The reason one side has to endure relentless mockery in this discussion is because that side has been unable to produce a single clear piece of evidence for its assertions over nearly 70 years of making them. This seems not to dissuade them or cause them to consider their own position in the least, though, which is the kind of blind faith in an unproven argument that gets a person mocked.
That's because neither side can agree on what constitutes "a single clear piece of evidence", and the side that demands this evidence often keeps moving the goalposts. What evidence would you need to see to take a discussion around it seriously?
Maybe I don't follow the issue closely enough, but I think it's been adequately explained that the video and images are almost always uncharacteristically unclear. What kind of discussion are you aiming to get? Because moving goal posts has nothing to do with it for me. Even if you showed me a crystal clear video of a UFO and intelligent beings working around it and then leaving, what action do you want me to take? We already have projects aimed at detecting alien communication and have made attempts to "put ourselves out there" so to speak. What else are you hoping for other than for more people to believe the evidence? I think the video of the Arizona incident you mentioned is pretty clear, for instance, considering the distance, and I even know people who saw it. I don't know of a satisfactory explanation. But... what can I do about that?
What sort of sensible debate do you think we ought to have? What exactly is the issue, or the claim?
"I saw something in the sky that I didn't understand" is a perfectly reasonable thing to say, but it's not usually grounds for a major national discussion. "Space aliens are flying through our skies" is an extraordinary claim, and should only be taken seriously in the face of extraordinary evidence.
Instead, all we've got is a rather small collection of blurry photos and videos that hasn't grown at all proportionately to the ready availability of cameras (as one would expect if these were true but rare events), and a handful of personal anecdotes that could be imagined (intentionally or not) or related to physiological experiences like sleep paralysis. At some point, the lack of evidence really ought to make folks question whether it's worth continuing to ask these same questions. When they keep at it anyway, it's hard to take them seriously.
Comments
This long term trend of UFO mockery is a very intelligent way to keep interest and investigation at bay. Take for example the Phoenix Lights incident where the Arizona Gov. got an aide to dress up as an alien as a good and far less subtle example:
http://www.ufosnw.com/news_items/govsymington03182007/govsym...
Sure, the fact that people taking pictures of UFOs can't hold a camera still to save their life has nothing to do with it.
As many disasters around the world have proven, when crazy things are actually happening people can get really good video with a simple mobile phone. It doesn't take any particular talent.
Your comment immediately reminded me of yet another "relevant xkcd": http://xkcd.com/1235/
Regarding some of the other comments here, my sense is that there are some beliefs where mockery really is the best response. (Hopefully not mean-spirited mockery, mind you.) If you engage with flat-earthers on a serious level, you inevitably wind up lending them at least a bit of an air of legitimacy (in the eyes of outsiders who may not yet be familiar with the topic in detail). If you ignore them, they can monopolize the public discussion and claim that you're afraid to face their ideas. Laughing at their ideas can be more effective in both ways, at least if handled well.
All I'm saying is it's hard to have a sensible debate around the issue when one side has to endure relentless mockery.
But the two things are directly connected. The reason one side has to endure relentless mockery in this discussion is because that side has been unable to produce a single clear piece of evidence for its assertions over nearly 70 years of making them. This seems not to dissuade them or cause them to consider their own position in the least, though, which is the kind of blind faith in an unproven argument that gets a person mocked.
That's because neither side can agree on what constitutes "a single clear piece of evidence", and the side that demands this evidence often keeps moving the goalposts. What evidence would you need to see to take a discussion around it seriously?
Maybe I don't follow the issue closely enough, but I think it's been adequately explained that the video and images are almost always uncharacteristically unclear. What kind of discussion are you aiming to get? Because moving goal posts has nothing to do with it for me. Even if you showed me a crystal clear video of a UFO and intelligent beings working around it and then leaving, what action do you want me to take? We already have projects aimed at detecting alien communication and have made attempts to "put ourselves out there" so to speak. What else are you hoping for other than for more people to believe the evidence? I think the video of the Arizona incident you mentioned is pretty clear, for instance, considering the distance, and I even know people who saw it. I don't know of a satisfactory explanation. But... what can I do about that?
What sort of sensible debate do you think we ought to have? What exactly is the issue, or the claim?
"I saw something in the sky that I didn't understand" is a perfectly reasonable thing to say, but it's not usually grounds for a major national discussion. "Space aliens are flying through our skies" is an extraordinary claim, and should only be taken seriously in the face of extraordinary evidence.
Instead, all we've got is a rather small collection of blurry photos and videos that hasn't grown at all proportionately to the ready availability of cameras (as one would expect if these were true but rare events), and a handful of personal anecdotes that could be imagined (intentionally or not) or related to physiological experiences like sleep paralysis. At some point, the lack of evidence really ought to make folks question whether it's worth continuing to ask these same questions. When they keep at it anyway, it's hard to take them seriously.
I'm pretty sure the seagull photo was in the article - it was the second picture, labeled "Slide 37". It did appear to be exactly as described.
"Slide 37" is definitely a seagull, though...