MY RESPONSE:
- 0:35 - UFO remember that the U stands for Unidentified.
But then he proceeds to use UFO to mean alien spaceship himself.....
Instant contradiction! This is a huge issue that keeps popping up. The majority (I estimate 99.99%) of UFO witnesses are not claiming ETs.., they report UFOs. We can't force our assumptions onto them (all UFOs must be ET) and then in the same breath say ETs can't possibly travel to Earth undetected, so the witness has mental issues etc. He's created the paradox to automatically dismiss UFO reports, because HE implies they are alien.
To label UFO reports as hallucinations in an attempt to dismiss 80 years worth of data is biased and unscientific. This outdated opinion can easily be proven wrong simply by looking at objects that were once considered imaginary, with witnesses being ridiculed.., but have since been verified.
https://weather.com/news/news/transient-luminous-events-mysteries-sky-20130731#7
http://www.hessdalen.org/
Neil Tyson would have mocked these individuals years ago, demanding alien DNA as proof before scientists were allowed to even research and observe the phenomenon. Creating the paradox to prevent further inquiry.
- 0:48 - Psychologists know all about "it".
Know all about "it"? I cannot find one research paper that proves "we are uncomfortable being ignorant" nor can I find any correlation with this and why people formed a ETH. The eth is based on a theory that alien life exists (which most scientists agree on). Where is the psychological link?
This is a huge stretch to make. I know of highly educated scientists that support (or at least don't dismiss) the ETH.
These people are not ignorant. That's just a rude and false accusation with no substance designed to belittle anyone with an opinion that differs.
He speaks of making an argument from ignorance.., then proceeds to lead by example. He cannot dismiss the ETH logically.., so he goes into personal attack mode. When you can't discuss the facts.., start personal attacks.
He makes it seem like an impossible theory to form.., yet in the same breath contradicts himself by saying "we live at the boundary between what is known and unknown in the universe".
So although its wrong to say UFOs must be ET.., he is just as wrong to dismiss the idea based on his contradiction.
- 1:10 - Someone see's a UFO. They say "I don't know what it is, it must be alien."
Wrong. 99.99% of credible UFO witnesses report unidentified objects, not alien ships. Other people listening make the claim, then force it on the witness, then in the same breath say aliens cannot be real, so they are lying or hallucinating
If someone wants to side with the ETH after making a UFO report.., then that's completely different. People are entitled to their opinions.., and it doesn't negate the report. If someone sees a UFO and afterwards someone asks what do you think it was. They are allowed to say I think its not from this world.., and that's their opinion.
If they say it MUST be from outer space.., then that's bias.
However, saying UFOs cannot be ET is also biased. Both are incorrect. Its not correct to develop a 100% official conclusion based on little evidence.., for either side. More research is needed.
- 2:00 - Every single journalists article begins with scientists have to go back to a drawing board. But they are always at the drawing board.
This is not true. Scientists have set conclusions, and DO get challenged all the time, and have to do exactly that. Go back to the "drawing board" is an expression he is taking literally. Also.., I would say he is being dramatic again with his statistics. I don't recall a majority or even a minority of journalists articles stating this. He is being dramatic to make his points seem more valid.
- 2:25 - If you're not at the drawing board, you're not making discoveries. You're something else.
This is good advice. he should take it. This is a direct contradiction to everything he is saying about being ignorant, and shows how biased he really is. What has he discovered? If he hasn't made any.., he is "something else". A journalist.
- 2:50 - Secondly, we know that the lowest form of evidence is eyewitness testimony
Early astronomy was simply observations. Most discoveries are initial observations. The trick is to move past the observation, create a hypothesis and test it. Not dwell on the initial observations, and use them to form conclusions. This is scientific bias. He's not open to looking objectively or attempting to move forward.
- 3:08 - Which is scary because that is some of the highest form of evidence in the court of law.
It is not the highest form of evidence in the court of law. In fact, it would probably be the lowest under polygraph tests, surveillance footage, audio recordings, documented facts (emails, phone calls), DNA samples, trace elements, fingerprints etc.
UFO witnesses can only provide statements and images. Otherwise, what else can be done? Pick any UFO case.., and explain what you would do differently.
Witness testimony and images are considered forms of EVIDENCE and can't be deemed otherwise when he chooses.
Also he is confusing PROOF with EVIDENCE. We (citizens) need PROOF aliens exist.
BUT.., scientists and police don't require PROOF to conduct an investigation. Nor do they demand the observer/witness/victim solve the case (PROVE) to prompt the investigation.
- 3:20 - Telephone whispers (relying on sound, passed onto many people) explains why first hand eye witness testimonies are untrustworthy.
This is a game played by children. The original report is never heard.., and we rely on the 20th kid to tell us what happened. The first 2 or 3 kids are usually accurate, but mistakes increase over time. All this proves is how 1st hand information is more reliable than 2nd hand information. And 3rd hand information.., and so forth.
UFO statements are visually sighted and reported first hand by adults. Not via a sequence of 20 children who receive 2nd hand information each time.
The original UFO report remains unchanged.., no matter how many people read the document. Each person is receiving 1st hand information from Airforce personnel, trained observers and reputable witnesses including scientists, astronomers, police, and more.
There is no connection. To make this comparison is so lazy. This just shows how weak his research procedures are.., and highlights his bias.
- 4:06 - It would not matter if you saw a flying saucer. In science, you cannot simply say you saw something. You need to prove it. Go home and come back with the evidence.
This is the main problem wrapped up nicely. A catch 22 or paradox. Another argument from ignorance.
Scientists won't look into UFOs.., because there isn't enough physical evidence (PROOF).
Its up to the witness to prove they saw a UFO. How is a UFO witness (not a scientist) meant to gather further data?
Choose any credible UFO case, and explain what steps you would take to gather more than images, and statements.
If I gathered some alien DNA or whatever.., I wouldn't need this douche because I already have the proof. Thanks for nothing. He wants others to do the hard work.., so he can gloat about it on public television and ride off others success. All with the attitude that "its obvious the whole time" attitude.
- 4:55 -. Human perception gets things wrong. Books on optical illusions should be called brain failures. And UFO sightings are brain failures.
No. They are called optical illusions. Purposely trying to re-word things in an attempt to make it fit your opinion is called bias. The magic eye books relied on people purposely going "cross eyed" in order to create a 3D effect. Unless people are staring at the sky cross-eyed.., I don't see how this is relevant.
I have yet to find any "optical illusion" that can create a UFO. Many have tried but can only provide weak examples of optical illusions that require very specific conditions to work, that are not present in the real world.
Its just a weak attempt at linking any illusion to UFOs. Nothing specific. Very lazy.
- 5:25 - We are poor data taking devices.
Yet he says scientists shouldn't look into UFOs until a witness can provide PROOF (not EVIDENCE).
He has created a contradiction.,. that means he never has to look into it. Nice job.
Having said that, astronomy relies heavily on observations (statements) and camera telescopes (images) ¯_(ツ)_/¯
- 5:30. That's why we have science. Because we have machines that will get the data right.
Again with the paradox. Its been proven here that a UFO witness (you or me) can only provide testimony and images.
The only thing that can verify UFO reports are scientific instruments. Witness testimonies and images are weak forms of evidence, and we already have 80+ years of this and don't require more.
In order to get the 'machines' out there looking.., we first need a reason. First.., we need people to see an event to encourage research. Scientists don't demand governments, business or civilians should PROVE climate change is real.., before they will look into it.
He already said witness data is not good. What can witnesses provide? (Images and testimony). How much more is needed to prompt a scientific investigation? Well, according to Neil.., 100% conclusive PROOF of alien DNA or tech.
The Neil Tyson research paradox.
6:00 - If you saw a UFO / ETV I need more than witness testimony and photographs.
I totally agree. I think this quote should be read by everyone here who maintains the stance that viewing witness testimony is enough to form a conclusion.
If you are then going to argue that you're entitled to an opinion.., please note the hypocrisy and double standards placed on people with theirs. Using images and testimony (EVIDENCE) to form solid scientific conclusions is weak. Based on the current EVIDENCE (images and testimony), we cannot say UFOs are ET owned.., but we also cannot say UFOs are not ET owned. More research is needed (i.e. magnometer, seismograph, geigercounter, IR, radar, range finder, spectrometer etc)
- 6:30 - Scientists will not study UFOs.., until an abductee steals technology from an an advanced alien spaceship. Until then, we can't do anything.
"The evidence thus far does not satisfy the standards of evidence that any scientists would require for any other claim."
That SCIENTISTS would require. We do not expect WITNESSES to provide PROOF.
This guy has never done his own work. He just reads Nature, and NewScientist articles, then regurgitates what others have done. He expects others to do the work, while he gets famous from it by acting like he knew all along.
- 8:15 - Astronomers are "always looking up".
This is a huge misconception. Astronomers don't stare at the sky.., or stare through a telescope for hours scanning the sky. When Astronomers are looking through a telescope, zoomed in on a fixed location, which covers a tiny percentage of a distant part of outer space.., they look, observe the distant star formations.., and record the data. This is why astronomers do not see UFOs.,. even if they were 50 metres away.
https://steemit.com/blog/@logicaldiscourse/is-an-et-craft-capable-of-visiting-earth-without-detection
- 8:50 - All human testimony is bad, regardless of reputation, position
This really adds to the issue of relying on witnesses to gather PROOF.., before scientists will look into it.
He demands high amounts of evidence from a witness.., but then says they are unable to produce this data.
But then goes back saying he requires proof from witnesses. Then goes back saying how its all bad. Back, forth.., whenever he needs to make his point he switches stance.
- 9:35 - Says he would mis-ID a star if he didn't study astronomy.
I knew what a star was by age 5. I knew what a shooting star was by then also. I think this guy may have some serious issues. Did anyone else freak out about the sky until they studied astronomy? Or is this some kind of over dramatised statement attempting to say everyone is an idiot and doesn't know what a star is.
- 10:20 - UFOs only land in farmer's yards.
This really shows how little he has researched the subject. There are hundreds of thousands of credible cases from reputable people, officially documented that spawned 5 government inquiries, all which yielded inconclusive results, but provided great data (images, radar returns, reputable trained observer statements).
I have no respect professionally for this man. He makes stupid assumptions all the time. He recently tweeted "An airplane whose engine fails is a glider. A helicopter whose engine fails is a brick." in his smart ass, know it all attitude. But as happens frequently with this fool.., he is proven wrong by a great man Destin.., who very calmly explained how he was wrong without the arrogant "know it all" attitude displayed by Tyson.
https://www.dailydot.com/parsec/neil-degrasse-tyson-smartereveryday-helicopters/
Tyson just wants to brag about (how little) he knows about physics and astronomy.
View Destin's educational videos.., and notice how he is able to actually teach a subject and provide data on why and how. Now study Neil Tyson's attempts at explaining anything. He is frustrated, emotional and over dramatic. Provides as little data as possible.., instead just talks a bunch of useless vague crap with total arrogance.., and ridicules anyone who doesn't know already. Very bad teacher (unless scripted by Seth McFarlane).
Veritassium, Seeker etc. The new wave. This "I know more than you. and you're a fool for not knowing what I know" attitude is old school. Clear concise and no emo. Tyson loves over complicating.., and not explaining.
- 11:08 - If an alien could traverse space.., they would not crash on Earth.
Another argument from ignorance assuming he knows exactly how an advanced alien race would run. He assumes that one day when humans have developed the technology that will allow long distance space travel.., then we as a race are infallible from any mistakes.., and we'll never have an accident ever again for all of human history, thanks to interstellar travel (for some reason).