Regardless of whether the hoax is morally wrong or not, it illustrates the important of really studying the facts of the case when investigating something. There’s so much comments on the hoaxers injecting themselves in the hoax, thus damaging the so-called experiment they conducted. That viewpoint is true. However, why are their comments taken at face value without further investigation? Did anyone investigate their background to determine whether they’re the kind to lie or something? No.

That’s why I wholeheartedly agree with Steve. Although I am a skeptic, I also know about ‘argument from ignorance’ but let’s face it, the only way to prove to skeptics like me the existence of UFOs is through proper science methodology. Hey, in my country we even have all kinds of ghosts, including a troll-like species that can be commanded to steal but I don’t believe their existence until I see them or proven via a proper methodology.

People like James Randi use faulty logic when trying to disprove psychic phenomena. The fact that you can simulate the event with magic tricks doesn’t disprove the event, it only means that the effect can be simulated using magic tricks. In the same light, If I create a silk flower that looks so real it fools people who look at it, it doesn’t mean that flowers don’t exist.

In answer to your question about what makes a “decent” investigator – that’s easy! Excellent critical thinking skills, and a knee-jerk tendency to verify and double-verify every single claim that a person makes. A decent investigator is one who first traces down the source of information, before applying any weight or credibility to the claim.

Thanks again for your comment!

Also unfortunately, Russo and Rudy’s attempt to legitimize the hoax as an “experiment” falls flat, since they actively lied in their interview with their local news outlet, claiming the objects they saw conducted radical maneuvers. Any investigator would reject the flare explanation in light of their made-up story.

Personally, it’s my opinion that actively creating hoaxes actually hurts the credibility of the scientific community, as showing that a particular effect can be produced by one method is far from proof that it isn’t produced by another. Also, it’s far more scientific to actually investigate odd claims, especially paranormal ones, to find out what’s actually behind them, rather than to make up an answer beforehand and then fabricate the evidence as Russo and Rudy did here. I have to compliment RU in it’s stance of not perpetrating hoaxes, there’s no need to muddle up a topic that is historically swamped with hoaxes to begin with.

“Because there aren’t any decent researchers in Ufology”. I have to ask, what criteria would an investigator need to qualify as a “decent” investigator? Aside from dis-believing in alien spacecraft, of course.

Thanks for your great feedback. I feel the same way you do about the Morristown issue (torn, that is), for the same reason you described – the fact that hoaxes like this, regardless of motive, reduce the overall credibility of all ufology research. On the flip side, it does reveal the ugly truth about ufology – so I guess in the end it probably was a positive thing.

Thanks again for your comments!

-Ryan

I’m torn about the Morristown issue in particular. On the one hand, it shows how ridiculous UFO Hunters is, which I see as a good thing. On the downside, it takes further credibility from the topic as a whole, which hurts the people wanting to do the real research even more. Tough call I suppose, but I’m gonna say from my opinion this helps us. If anything, it should make UFO Hunters tighten down and check their sources out a bit more. So, hopefully, the most watched UFO program on TV will provide a little better information to their viewers.