UFO Hoaxing 101

[Safe-Keeper]

Well, if part of the reason why you're pulling off a hoax is to make a point, then you'll definitely want to "get caught" or reveal the hoax because otherwise you won't make your point. James Randi, to my knowledge, always reveals his hoaxes (perhaps most famously the Carlos scam) in the end, to make his point.

 

[CelticRose]

An earlier thread on this here

But, I agree. Road flares are pretty safe on the road. On the roof of my house, tangled in the limbs of a dead cedar tree, or on the forest floor - not so much. These guys hearts were in the right place, but they didn't fully engage their brains.

I'm sure folks here could pull off a more effective - and safe - hoax without much effort...

Thanks, mb. I looked back through this section and couldn't find a thread on this.

Garbage bags work almost as well as balloons; they look like bags of garbage floating away upside-down.

Or, so I'm told...

This reminds me of something my dad used to do to amuse myself and my brother. He would make a hot-air balloon using a plastic bag from the dry-cleaner's, plastic drinking straws, and birthday candles. He would then set it free and we would all climb in the car and chase it to see how far it went. We never heard any reports of ufos in the area.

Later, he admitted that it wasn't probably the brightest of ideas due to the fire danger.

 

[Starthinker]

But they clearly did intend to jump out and say "ha ha I fooled you," didn't they? Isn't that why they filmed all their preparation so carefully and then released the film?

Well, if part of the reason why you're pulling off a hoax is to make a point, then you'll definitely want to "get caught" or reveal the hoax because otherwise you won't make your point. James Randi, to my knowledge, always reveals his hoaxes (perhaps most famously the Carlos scam) in the end, to make his point.

Maybe a better word is "demonstrations" or something. I still don't think a true hoaxer would ever intend to "get caught".

 

[King of the Americas]

There is a fine line between a hoax and a practical joke. If your intention is to jump out and say "ha ha, I fooled you" then you are playing a practical joke. I always felt a good hoax should never reveal who did it and a good hoaxer will never be known or caught. Bad hoaxers end up looking foolish like these guys or people who freeze bigfoot costumes.

Hoaxing is perpetrating a LIE.

How could anyone consider it a good thing?

What purpose does it serve?

I really didn't know Mr. Randi was an active hoaxer...I just lost any and all respect I had for him, if that is the case.

Practical jokes on the other hand are harmless fun, and don't offend me in the slightest...so long as the joker reveals himself and that it is a joke before any real damage is done.

Seriously, "hoaxers" should be horse whipped, and then placed in the public stockades. These people are committing a crime against science, and you people are applauding their efforts!?!? What the hell is wrong with you people???

 

[Yoink]

Hoaxing is perpetrating a LIE.

How could anyone consider it a good thing?

What purpose does it serve?

I really didn't know Mr. Randi was an active hoaxer...I just lost any and all respect I had for him, if that is the case.

Practical jokes on the other hand are harmless fun, and don't offend me in the slightest...so long as the joker reveals himself and that it is a joke before any real damage is done.

Seriously, "hoaxers" should be horse whipped, and then placed in the public stockades. These people are committing a crime against science, and you people are applauding their efforts!?!? What the hell is wrong with you people???

I'm sorry--do you consider these people to be "hoaxers" or "practical jokers"? You do realize that they intended to reveal what they had done all along, right?

 

[madurobob]

This reminds me of something my dad used to do to amuse myself and my brother. He would make a hot-air balloon using a plastic bag from the dry-cleaner's, plastic drinking straws, and birthday candles. He would then set it free and we would all climb in the car and chase it to see how far it went. We never heard any reports of ufos in the area.

Later, he admitted that it wasn't probably the brightest of ideas due to the fire danger.

Exactly what my friends and I did in our childhood! They fly really well, but slip away quickly on even the most imperceptible breezes. We also never heard any UFO reports, but we did have a few angry neighbors yelling at us at 2AM when ours got caught in the branches of a pine tree about 50 feet up. We didn't set anything on fire, but did cement our neighborhood reputation as a dangerously dumb group of kids.

ETA: and now that I am reminded of this, I am going to do it again with my kids this fall...

 

[Safe-Keeper]

There's also the mighty fire lantern. It's Western name ("UFO Balloon") belies a possible usage in our neck of the woods.

(ETA)

Hoaxing is perpetrating a LIE.

How could anyone consider it a good thing?

Well, let's take an example.

1. People believe in channellers.
2. James Randi orchestrates a "fake" channeller that operates just like all the other channellers.
3. People believe him, too.
4. James Randi exposes him as a hoax.
5. People learn that they should maybe be a bit more sceptical about channellers.

 

[King of the Americas]

I'm sorry--do you consider these people to be "hoaxers" or "practical jokers"? You do realize that they intended to reveal what they had done all along, right?

Practical joking IS different than hoaxing...

The people doing SAY they are performing a "hoax", AND they are further perpetrating the falsehood by contact MUFON and local news organizations.

They are purposing to mis-lead the public, investigators, and news outlets. WASTING people's time, and investigative resources.

$250 seemed like a mere slap on the wrist. We should, as a society, 'strongly' discourage this kind of behavior. Jail time would have been perfectly acceptable, in my opinion.

 

[King of the Americas]

There's also the mighty fire lantern. It's Western name ("UFO Balloon") belies a possible usage in our neck of the woods.

(ETA)

Well, let's take an example.

1. People believe in channellers.
2. James Randi orchestrates a "fake" channeller that operates just like all the other channellers.
3. People believe him, too.
4. James Randi exposes him as a hoax.
5. People learn that they should maybe be a bit more sceptical about channellers.

If people AREN'T really 'channeling', then prove it. There is NO benefit in pretending to be a channeler too... Demonstrating how 'you' can pretend to channel ISN'T "proving how someone else is doing it".

If someone is lying, prove it. Adding more lies to the mix is just clouding the investigation.

Attempting to cause everyone to be skeptical about all channelers could be done by "proving" that they are frauds, ONE CASE AT A TIME.

The result of hoaxing is that people think ALL channelers are liars. While this may be acceptable to die-hard skeptics, it is a dis-service to sincere channelers. They are innocent, until otherwise "proven" guilty.

By leading people to believe ALL channelers are crooks or liars, you are creating a falsehood. IF a channeler is NOT actually channeling then prove it, publicly display evidence that they are NOT truly channeling.

It would be akin to dressing in black face to commit crimes, in an attempt to lead people to believe that all crimes are committed by 'dark skinned people'.

Hoaxing is literally an attempt to lead people away from the truth.

Hoaxing is an attack on Science.

I HATE hoaxers, as well as those who applaud their efforts.

 

[Yoink]

If people AREN'T really 'channeling', then prove it. There is NO benefit in pretending to be a channeler too... Demonstrating how 'you' can pretend to channel ISN'T "proving how someone else is doing it".

If someone is lying, prove it. Adding more lies to the mix is just clouding the investigation.

Attempting to cause everyone to be skeptical about all channelers could be done by "proving" that they are frauds, ONE CASE AT A TIME.

The result of hoaxing is that people think ALL channelers are liars. While this may be acceptable to die-hard skeptics, it is a dis-service to sincere channelers. We are innocent, until otherwise "proven" guilty.

By leading people to believe ALL channelers are crooks or liars, you are creating a falsehood. IF a channeler is NOT actually channeling then prove it, publicly display evidence that they are NOT truly channeling.

It would be akin to dressing in black face to commit crimes, in an attempt to lead people to believe that all crimes are committed by 'dark skinned people'.

Hoaxing is literally an attempt to lead people away from the truth.

Hoaxing is an attack on Science.

I HATE hoaxers, as well as those who applaud their efforts.

People overestimate the reliability of eyewitnesses. They particularly overestimate the reliability of eyewitnesses who have some sort of professional qualification related (however vaguely) to the incidents they are reporting on. A hoax of this kind provides an excellent opportunity to demonstrate just how people embellish and distort their own memories.

You can't do this, for the most part, by proving that people's reported experiences from the past were false because usually there isn't sufficient evidence of what actually happened. So these people provide a great service by teaching us that when they see someone on television saying that "I saw a mysterious light that moved far too fast to be any known areoplane" or whatever, that we should be skeptical unless they can produce real evidence.

As for resources wasted etc.--well, it's not like they hoaxed a search and rescue unit into making a search in the middle of the ocean or something (that would be truly despicable). A few news stations devoted some time to a minor story; I'm sure the news stations were entirely happy to have that story to tell to their viewers. A few people spent time getting interviewed on TV about what they saw; they all looked pretty happy about being interviewed. And apart from that?

 

[King of the Americas]

People overestimate the reliability of eyewitnesses. They particularly overestimate the reliability of eyewitnesses who have some sort of professional qualification related (however vaguely) to the incidents they are reporting on. A hoax of this kind provides an excellent opportunity to demonstrate just how people embellish and distort their own memories.

You can't do this, for the most part, by proving that people's reported experiences from the past were false because usually there isn't sufficient evidence of what actually happened. So these people provide a great service by teaching us that when they see someone on television saying that "I saw a mysterious light that moved far too fast to be any known areoplane" or whatever, that we should be skeptical unless they can produce real evidence.

As for resources wasted etc.--well, it's not like they hoaxed a search and rescue unit into making a search in the middle of the ocean or something (that would be truly despicable). A few news stations devoted some time to a minor story; I'm sure the news stations were entirely happy to have that story to tell to their viewers. A few people spent time getting interviewed on TV about what they saw; they all looked pretty happy about being interviewed. And apart from that?

There are other ways to demonstrate the fallible instrument that is human perception.

Now you are suggesting that search and rescue teams' time and resources are valuable, whereas UFO investigators' time is worthless???

That is demeaning to those earnestly investigating the U.F.O. phenomena.

A 'few news stations devoted some time to a minor LIE', that COULD & SHOULD have been spent in the distribution of actual truth.

You are justifying these hoaxers, by suggesting that they didn't waste a lot of time and resources???

Really?

The time spent covering this LIE, could have been spent airing pictures of a real criminal, currently being searched for. It could have been spent covering what elected officials voted on, for, and why. Hell, it could have been used to tell their audiences a little more about the weather! ANY of which would be drastically more valuable than wasting time covering a LIE!!!

Hoaxers should be treated like the fecal matter they peddle.

 

[Yoink]

There are other ways to demonstrate the fallible instrument that is human perception.

Now you are suggesting that search and rescue teams' time and resources are valuable, whereas UFO investigators' time is worthless???

That is demeaning to those earnestly investigating the U.F.O. phenomena.

A 'few news stations devoted some time to a minor LIE', that COULD & SHOULD have been spent in the distribution of actual truth.

You are justifying these hoaxers, by suggesting that they didn't waste a lot of time and resources???

Really?

The time spent covering this LIE, could have been spent airing pictures of a real criminal, currently being searched for. It could have been spent covering what elected officials voted on, for, and why. Hell, it could have been used to tell their audiences a little more about the weather! ANY of which would be drastically more valuable than wasting time covering a LIE!!!

Hoaxers should be treated like the fecal matter they peddle.

Dude, calm down.

The TV cameras weren't covering a "lie"--they were reporting on something that really happened. People saw lights in the sky because there were lights in the sky. Nobody forced the TV crews to cover this, so we can safely assume that any news items that got bumped because of it were less important than lights in the sky. Please, stop and think about that for a second. Nobody was saying "so, do we report on the armed murderer rampaging downtown or the lights in the sky? What to do, what to do?" Any story bumped by a "lights in the sky" story would have been along the lines of "cat returns to family after week away!" or "adorable puppy rides surfboard!"

The next time a UFO is reported and "eyewitness" reports come in about the "strange" and "inexplicable" movements of the lights that are seen, a quick reference to this experiment will serve to show people that very simple phenomena can be badly misremembered and misreported even by honest and well meaning observers, as well as being gaudily embroidered by those who like the attention of news crews. That will actually save people's wasted attention to future hoaxes of the same kind.

Look at all the wasted news and other attention paid to crop circles, for example. The more people who go out and make those circles and then show how they did so the better: eventually everyone will realize that they are a purely human phenomenon and everybody will stop wasting their time on them.

 

[Fnord]

Occam's Razor Rules!

There are other ways to demonstrate the fallible instrument that is human perception.

But none so successful.

Now you are suggesting that search and rescue teams' time and resources are valuable, whereas UFO investigators' time is worthless???

Now you are suggesting that search and rescue teams and resources are worthless, and that UFO investigators' time has value.

That is demeaning to those earnestly investigating the U.F.O. phenomena.

We're in danger of their ire only if those people eventually move out of their mothers' basements and take up arms against us.

A 'few news stations devoted some time to a minor LIE', that COULD & SHOULD have been spent in the distribution of actual truth.

The actual truth is that when you see an object flying in the sky, and you can not identify that object, it only means that you can not identify a flying object. Isn't it enough to see an unidentified flying object without having to believe that there are extraterrestrial aliens and/or a grand conspiracy behind it too?

You are justifying these hoaxers, by suggesting that they didn't waste a lot of time and resources???

They are justified by the fact that they have exposed UFO conspiracy theorists for the misguided and delusions fools that they are, thus performing a great service for the advancement of truth, sanity and reason.

Really?

Yes.

Really.

The time spent covering this LIE, could have been spent airing pictures of a real criminal, currently being searched for.

... just like the time you spent posting your tirade against those who expose the truth.

It could have been spent covering what elected officials voted on, for, and why.

That's what C-SPAN is for. None do it better.

Hell, it could have been used to tell their audiences a little more about the weather!

That's what the Weather Channel is for.

ANY of which would be drastically more valuable than wasting time covering a LIE!!!

They exposed the lie that is the Great UFO Conspiracy Theory.

Hoaxers should be treated like the fecal matter they peddle.

There was no peddling. They simply demonstrated how deluded and foolish are those that believe there is some secret conspiracy behind that shiny dot in the sky and those drunken reports of abduction and anal probing.

What's more, they provided proof of there assertions, rather than assume that repeating the same theories over and over somehow makes them true.

There will be more such demonstrations - I guarantee it!

 

[Giggywig]

...snip...
Now you are suggesting that search and rescue teams' time and resources are valuable, whereas UFO investigators' time is worthless???

That is demeaning to those earnestly investigating the U.F.O. phenomena.

...snip...
You are justifying these hoaxers, by suggesting that they didn't waste a lot of time and resources???

...snip...

If those "earnestly investigating the U.F.O. phenomena" are so incompetent as to be fooled by 5 flares hanging from weather balloons then their time as "UFO investigators" is clearly worthless and would be better spent doing... anything else.

 

[King of the Americas]

Science at its core, is the search for Truth.

To create a lie, and then put effort into garnering attention to it, in an attempt to get people to believe in it, is an affront to Science itself, and a waste of investigative resources.

To take part in such endeavors and or applaud those who do, is the kind of behavior that people should be burned at the stake for...

---

Hoaxing U.F.O. investigators is fun and funny to skeptics.

But how funny would it be to fake someone's grandmother's violent rape and murder, all in the name of being skeptical, or building skepticism for police investigations? Would it be acceptable to fake photos of a bloody mangled corpse?

It's not 'real'...no body got hurt, all that happened was a few dumb believers got dooped...

They had it coming. They should be more skeptical of police reports.

Lies 'hurt'. They are an obstacle to Science, and those who seek to further lies should be shunned, if not punished severely.

Justifying the wasting of someone's investigative resources, seems to me the pinnacle ignorance.

I was instructed to "calm down"... Calm down?

People lie, cause others to waste time and energy, and some here applaud the liars' efforts...?

In my opinion, there's no where near enough outrage over such acts.

It saddens me, both personally and professionally, to see you people defend this stuff.

 

[Stray Cat]

That has always annoyed me too, the way Pilots are cited as reliable witnesses automatically because of their job

If I can be bothered I usually answer along the lines of:
"well if that's the case then astronomers would be even more reliable because it's their job to look out into space... and funnily enough they never see UFO's at all."
Which can of course bring out the old "That's because they're being told not to talk about it by the Illuminati" nonsense.

Oh, nononoNO!
It's because the astronomers are all looking into space! Of course they won't see UFOs flying through the air!

I'm hoping that response really is tongue in cheek.
The reason they don't see UFOs (alien space craft) is because they don't exist.

Hail Eris!

 

[King of the Americas]

Now you are suggesting that search and rescue teams and resources are worthless, and that UFO investigators' time has value.

EVERYONE's investigative resources are valuable 'to them'.

It is WRONG, even criminal, to em-peed anyone's investigation by planting knowingly falsified evidence.

If you don't agree with those statements, then I've no use for you what so ever.

 

[Stray Cat]

Science at its core, is the search for Truth.

To create a lie, and then put effort into garnering attention to it, in an attempt to get people to believe in it, is an affront to Science itself, and a waste of investigative resources.

Would it not make good scientific sense to test the 'experts'?
How else could you do this except to make them subject to some 'hoaxed' phenomena that they claim to be expert in and then testing their ability to use their 'expertise' to make a judgement on it?

 

[Safe-Keeper]

. If people AREN'T really 'channeling', then prove it. There is NO benefit in pretending to be a channeler too... Demonstrating how 'you' can pretend to channel ISN'T "proving how someone else is doing it".

If someone is lying, prove it. Adding more lies to the mix is just clouding the investigation.

Attempting to cause everyone to be skeptical about all channelers could be done by "proving" that they are frauds, ONE CASE AT A TIME.

Except there are way too many psychics out there to disprove them "one case at a time". These hoaxes very, very effectively prove that the "you can't explain how they do it, so they must be psychics" line of reasoning is completely and utterly false. Or in this case, "we don't know what they are, so they must be from outer space".

 

[Yoink]

To take part in such endeavors and or applaud those who do, is the kind of behavior that people should be burned at the stake for...

Again--calm down. Go have a nap. Take a Xanax. Seriously--you're scaring me.

Hoaxing U.F.O. investigators is fun and funny to skeptics.

But how funny would it be to fake someone's grandmother's violent rape and murder, all in the name of being skeptical, or building skepticism for police investigations? Would it be acceptable to fake photos of a bloody mangled corpse?

Somebody is losing all perspective. Go take a nice long walk in the fresh air.