Debunking “Skeptical” Arguments Against UFOs

When reading this title, more than a few people will probably think I’m your typical conspiracy theorist who’s obsessed with UFOs and the paranormal, but nothing could be further from the truth. What I’m going to do is refute the typical arguments often put forward by “science enthusiasts” — or even science communicators and scientists themselves — when the topic of UFOs and extraterrestrials comes up.

This issue has always been controversial, but let me make one thing clear: we agree that, regardless of the true nature of this phenomenon, there is currently no solid scientific or empirical evidence to support the idea that so-called UFOs (Unidentified Flying Objects), or currently UAPs (Unidentified Aerial Phenomena), are spacecraft from other planets. Therefore, I do not intend to affirm this hypothesis; my intention is to show that, when discussing this topic, the criticisms and arguments of people who perceive themselves as “skeptics” are not usually as “logical and rational” as they tend to believe.

What is Pseudoskepticism?

Before delving into the arguments, it is worth defining what pseudosceticism is, as it will be central to this analysis. We could define it as a stance in which someone believes they are applying critical and rational thinking, but in reality adopts a dogmatic and closed-minded attitude, rejecting ideas without evaluating them objectively. Unlike genuine skepticism, which questions with an open mind and seeks evidence, the pseudo-skeptic rejects ideas out of prejudice or convenience. This term began to gain popularity in the 20th century, especially thanks to figures like sociologist Marcello Truzzi, who coined it to describe those who, under the guise of science, dismissed anomalous phenomena without serious investigation. Some of its characteristics are:

• Selective denial: Instead of objectively evaluating all the evidence, they focus on rejecting certain topics without serious investigation, even when there is valid data supporting the possibility.
• Unbalanced burden of proof: It insists that the proponent of an idea provide absolute evidence, but does not apply the same standard to its own claims or counterarguments.
• Use of fallacies: It tends to use logical fallacies such as personal attacks (ad hominem), sweeping generalizations, or appeals to authority to discredit ideas, rather than addressing the data itself.
• Closed-mindedness: Shows a resistance to changing one’s mind even when presented with compelling evidence that contradicts one’s initial position.
• Over-simplification: Often trivializes complex issues through simplistic analogies or misrepresentations, rather than engaging in a thorough discussion.

1. Impossibility

Pseudo-skeptics often spout phrases like “it’s impossible for them to be aliens — they don’t exist” or “it’s impossible; there’s no evidence,” and so on, but the common thread is their use of the word “impossible.” However, this is a dogmatic stance rather than a scientific assertion. Impossibility is the lack of possibility (forgive the redundancy) that something will happen or exist; in other words, the probability is zero. As examples, we can cite: the Earth turning into a cake, an apple turning into a banana, the existence of magical powers, and so on. We could easily classify these as beyond all possibility in the real world; however, this judgment cannot be applied at all to the possibility of extraterrestrial life.

To this day, most scientists consider the existence of life beyond Earth entirely possible, although they are more cautious when it comes to intelligent life; nor do they consider the possibility to be zero. Furthermore, although the hypothesis of being visited by technologically more advanced beings from other worlds may seem fantastical, there is no physical law preventing this from happening — in other words, the possibility is greater than zero.

In other words, the extraterrestrial hypothesis is a NON-FALSEABLE premise — that is, it cannot be refuted as false (at least in truly anomalous and unexplained cases) — and as long as this remains the case, the possibility cannot be ruled out. I just hope no “intellectual” comes along to use the “dragon in the room” fallacy as a counterargument to this point, since it doesn’t apply.

In short, people who vehemently deny this hypothesis, rather than being rational, merely demonstrate an absurd prejudice, contrary to the true scientific spirit. Of course, they don’t have to believe in or support this hypothesis, but it is more prudent to say that it is improbable than to say it is impossible.

2. Distances that are too long

This is a classic: “UFOs can’t be alien spacecraft because the distances between stars are enormous.” Many people are aware that the distance between stars is indeed extremely vast — so much so that even traveling at the speed of light would take years to get from one celestial body to another, making interstellar travel seem like something straight out of science fiction. But this argument suffers from a serious lack of perspective.

It assumes that extraterrestrials would have the same technological limitations as we do, or the same limitations in terms of knowledge of astrophysics. It fails to consider that a civilization thousands or even millions of years more advanced could relatively easily overcome this obstacle, possessing knowledge and technology that are beyond our comprehension. In fact, some theoretical alternatives for short-term interstellar travel have recently been proposed, eliminating the need to wait years to travel from one point in the galaxy to another.

Take, for example, the possible existence of wormholes — regions that would connect points in space, acting as a sort of shortcut, allowing a spacecraft to cover enormous distances in a short time. We saw this, for example, in the movie Interstellar. A Type 3 civilization on the Kardashev scale might be capable of creating these spatial shortcuts, which would allow them to bridge great distances in a short time, ensuring that travel does not entail excessive energy or time costs. Of course, these so-called wormholes are hypothetical; their existence has not yet been proven, but the point is that it would theoretically be possible in our universe, and it seems to me a valid speculative alternative for imagining how these supposed spacecraft might travel freely from some point in space to Earth.

Another alternative would be warp drive, a hypothesis proposed by physicist Miguel Alcubierre, which involves warping spacetime to travel faster than light without violating the laws of physics. It would involve compressing spacetime in front of the spacecraft and expanding it behind it, creating a “bubble” that would carry it along. The ship would not actually move faster than light, since space itself would move around it. Of course, this is speculative and involves certain energy-related problems, but, once again, that perspective is ours — a civilization that doesn’t even reach Type 1; a Type 3 or higher civilization might have resolved any issues with this method.

Image from the Hubble Space Telescope. Credits: NASA and ESA

3. Maneuvers that defy the laws of physics

Another criticism often leveled by pseudo-skeptics is that the testimonies describe phenomena that supposedly defy known physics, leading them to conclude that these accounts are exaggerations or mere fabrications. However, upon analyzing the testimonies, one finds nothing that actually violates fundamental laws of physics; they merely challenge our current understanding of human engineering. Indeed, the maneuvers or phenomena would be impossible with our current technology, but not so much for an advanced civilization. Here I quote Isaac Asimov: “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.”

4. The Age of the Earth and the Universe

This is one that really bothers me. Critics often claim that it is impossible or unlikely for there to be many civilizations because it must have taken billions of years for favorable conditions to develop on a planet.

For example, approximately 13 billion years have passed since the beginning of the universe until the emergence of humans, and Earth formed about 4 billion years ago. Therefore, they assume that for an intelligent civilization to emerge, the same amount of time must elapse, which, while it sounds logical, overlooks certain points. Specifically, they are using intelligent life on Earth and the conditions that allowed it to develop as the sole reference point. Since there may be a vast number of variables influencing the time it takes for a civilization to emerge on a planet, there may be planets where intelligent life developed in a much shorter timeframe; they may not have experienced any mass extinctions, unlike Earth, which had approximately four, and so on.

So I think it is wrong to assume that, just because it took Earth 4 billion years to develop an intelligent civilization, the same must be true for all other planets.

An illustration of how the Earth is thought to have formed

5. There’s no reason for them to visit us

This one strikes me as the most absurd of all. A lot of people always make comments like, “Why would they bother visiting Earth? There’s nothing worthwhile here; we’re not important.” Honestly, I don’t know what’s wrong with people who think this, and I’m even more surprised when they claim to be “scientific thinkers,” but it’s clear that’s not the case.

The real question is: why wouldn’t they visit us? Just look at our species: we’ve invested time and resources in space exploration; we’ve spent millions of dollars just to put a human on the Moon, so they could bring back some rocks to be studied, and we’re planning to send humans to Mars soon. We all, of course, understand why: scientific study, exploration, and the spirit of discovery.

Now, imagine we discover that extraterrestrial life exists on, say, the moon Titan; it wouldn’t necessarily be complex or intelligent — it could be microbial. Even so, it would be a sensation in the scientific community, and, of course, many would be more than eager to go there, to study how these bacteria function, how they arose, how different they are from terrestrial organisms, and so on. Well, an extraterrestrial civilization visiting Earth would have that same thought, as Earth is a place with an enormous variety of fauna, flora, and, most interestingly, the human species.

Extraterrestrial scientists would be more than fascinated to study everything about us: how we evolved, our composition, our culture, behavior, and so on. Studying another intelligent species would be just as fascinating to them as it would be to us if the situation were reversed. So there are plenty of reasons for them to visit us.

In some discussions I’ve had, people have argued that an advanced extraterrestrial civilization would view us as “insignificant” or “of little value” because of our inferior intelligence (compared to theirs). This strikes me as absurd; it assumes that such a civilization would be so arrogant as to have no interest in us whatsoever due to our supposed “inferiority.” It’s funny because many who defend this view also argue that such civilizations would be advanced not only scientifically but also morally, so concepts related to discrimination wouldn’t exist. Therefore, they’d be contradicting themselves.

An example to try to refute this approach would be, once again, our own species. Take ants, for example — tiny insects that, while highly organized and capable of creating complex structures, are nonetheless considered “inferior” by many humans, since no matter how many achievements they have, they are nowhere near the level of knowledge and technology of our species. But despite this arrogance on the part of some, there are also people who dedicate their lives to researching these tiny beings, free from prejudice and driven solely by a quest for knowledge about such fascinating creatures. Well, if this phenomenon occurs with our species — which is arrogant in various contexts — it would not be unreasonable to think that the same would occur with a more advanced species.

Human culture, however “primitive” it may be, would be a fascinating subject of study for a more advanced civilization

6. We would be able to detect their ships if they came to Earth

This borders on the absurd. While we do have satellites and instruments dedicated to studying and detecting near-Earth objects, they are not omnipresent and, in fact, have certain limitations. The objects they typically detect must be relatively large and must reflect sunlight, among other specific conditions. In other words, we are not capable of detecting every object that enters the atmosphere; in fact, meteors fall unexpectedly every day in various parts of the world, some of which can even be the size of a car.

A clear example would be the Chelyabinsk incident, an unforeseen event in 2013, where a fireball approximately 17 meters in diameter — almost as large as a commercial airplane — fell near that Russian city. The event could not be predicted due to the limitations of space surveillance programs, which, as I mentioned, are better equipped to handle large objects. Therefore, a hypothetical spacecraft the size of a car or an airplane would be impossible to detect easily, especially if these craft are equipped with some form of camouflage designed precisely to avoid detection.

The situation would be different if a mothership appeared in the solar system or near Earth; in theory, it would be large enough for us to detect it. But in most UFO sightings, the objects are no larger than 5 meters, although there are reports of alleged spacecraft the size of a football field, though these are not very common.

Chelyabinsk Meteor, 2013

7. UFOs are secret aircraft

A recurring claim is that so-called UFOs/UAPs are actually secret aircraft or aerial vehicles built by the U.S. government or some other superpower. Interestingly, historically speaking, this has indeed happened to some extent. Between the 1960s and 1980s, the U.S. government developed several aircraft in secret, in the context of the Cold War with the then-Soviet Union. Several of these aircraft were, on occasion, responsible for UFO sightings. Planes like the U-2, the A-12 Oxcart, the SR-71 Blackbird, or the F-117 Nighthawk caused confusion because their designs were unconventional for the time; this, combined with the secrecy surrounding information about these aircraft, created the perfect scenario for such confusion.

So it could be said that this argument has some basis. However, I believe that it does not carry much weight today. As always, we will take into account unexplained sightings, especially those with characteristics that are quite unusual and seemingly impossible for our current engineering, such as: antigravity, instantaneous turns and accelerations, speeds exceeding those of today’s best supersonic aircraft, and so on. No government, no matter how many financial and human resources it invests in trying to develop something similar, could achieve it due to the limitations of current science and engineering. It would be the equivalent of the Roman Empire trying to create a modern fighter jet.

Furthermore, there is a very important point that many overlook: the budget. Developing an aircraft or any complex new technology requires a massive investment, something that would not go unnoticed, no matter how secret the project may be. Take, for example, the U.S. government’s most advanced aircraft to date, the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II. Development of this aircraft began in the 1990s, and in the years since, it has faced a series of technical and budgetary challenges, causing delays in its development. This sparked a wave of criticism, including from Senator John McCain, who called the project “a cost disaster.” The F-35 received $1.7 trillion in public funding, according to estimates by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and the Pentagon, a figure to which funding from partner nations and the private sector was also added.

That said, this aircraft is considered one of the most advanced in the world and required a massive investment of public and private funds. However, despite this, its capabilities fall far short of what some UFOs apparently can achieve, such as sharp turns and sudden accelerations, extreme speeds, and so on. If developing the F-35 alone was an odyssey for the U.S. government, imagine an aircraft that far surpasses those capabilities: the budget for its manufacture would be enormous and would far exceed that of the aforementioned aircraft. It would be completely impossible to carry out such development in secret; Congress would notice such a budgetary investment and, obviously, would prevent such waste.

Even with private investment, it would be difficult to hide. Furthermore, if it received that kind of funding, then it would inevitably be intended to eventually commercialize that technology to recoup the investment. However, these UFOs have been flying over our skies for decades, and if such advanced technology had been developed in secret, there is no indication that they would have made it public.

Following this last point, one must also consider that it wouldn’t make much sense to maintain such impressive technology and not take advantage of it. The most logical thing would be to make it public as a way to demonstrate the government’s technological superiority — basically saying, “We have these craft that surpass any in the world; think twice before messing with us.” New military technologies serve not only a practical purpose but also a political one. Demonstrating military and technological superiority is an effective deterrent against rival nations; keeping it secret would make no sense.

The F-117 Nighthawk stealth aircraft, whose unusual shape may have led to sightings of triangular-shaped UFOs

8. The witnesses are not reliable

This is another classic. To discredit UFO sightings, pseudo-skeptics, instead of objectively analyzing the account, simply belittle and mock the witnesses, saying things like “they’re crazy,” “they must have been on drugs,” “it was a mass hallucination,” and so on — phrases that, rather than demonstrating a skeptical spirit, reveal prejudice and discrimination toward those who witnessed the phenomenon. In this case, an ad hominem fallacy is committed, where the person is attacked rather than the argument, since no reasons are given as to why the phenomenon they observed is not of extraterrestrial nature; the witness is simply discredited.

Of course, I am aware that a testimony is not scientific evidence; we agree on that. However, to go from there to making hasty and disparaging accusations — such as that the witnesses are not in their right minds or were under the influence of narcotics — is completely absurd. The funniest part is that these people believe their arguments are rational, but they don’t realize that they don’t even have evidence to back up their claims. That is to say, for example, they don’t have a medical diagnosis certifying substance use or a mental imbalance; they simply assume this to discredit the witness.

9. Hasty acceptance of rational explanations

When a UFO sighting occurs, the goal is to conduct an investigation to determine the nature of the phenomenon. Often, this task can be complicated, whether due to poor investigative practices, prejudice, bias, and so on. Even in the case of a serious or rigorous investigation, a definitive conclusion is not always reached, due to the elusive nature of the phenomenon — an aspect that is heavily criticized (and with some justification) by scientists and skeptics. However, many times, without even having conducted any kind of initial inquiry, some people rush to draw hasty conclusions that are more “rational” than the idea of being visited by beings from space.

This practice can be harmful and unscientific, since, in an effort to explain the phenomenon, one resorts to alternatives that seem “logical,” such as confusion in observation with celestial bodies or other meteorological phenomena, satellites, and so on. While this is entirely valid as a hypothesis for an explanation, the problem arises when this approach is taken as the “definitive explanation”; that is, it is accepted as fact without even conducting the necessary verification, simply assuming this proposal as “the truth,” purely because it is more plausible than the alien alternative. As I mentioned at the beginning, this is far from scientific and rigorous, but to illustrate it better, let’s look at an example.

In 1966, police officers Dale Spaur and Wilbur “Barney” Neff were investigating an abandoned vehicle on Route 224, near Ravenna, Ohio, when a UFO sighting occurred. According to accounts, as Spaur was getting out of the car, Neff heard a strange humming sound and saw an unidentified flying object rise from behind the trees, hovering above them and bathing the area in a bright light. This event marked the start of a chase that spanned over 130 km, crossing the border into Pennsylvania, and lasted nearly 30 minutes, with speeds exceeding 160 km/h.

The chase initially involved only Spaur and Neff’s car, but other officers from different jurisdictions soon joined in, such as Wayne Huston from East Palestine, Ohio. The object appeared to be moving deliberately, ascending, descending, and occasionally stopping, which witnesses interpreted as a “game of cat and mouse.” The chase ended when the UFO ascended vertically at high speed and disappeared, coinciding with the arrival of military jets, according to reports.

This is known as the Portage County UFO incident, and I have cited it because at the time, attempts were made to determine the nature of what those officers saw. The military’s initial response, according to reports, suggested that the observed object was a satellite or the planet Venus. This was based on common celestial observations, but no specific satellite was identified, nor were details provided on how it fit the witnesses’ descriptions, such as size, metallic appearance, and dynamic movements. This lack of detail generated skepticism from the outset.

The famous Project Blue Book, under the direction of Major Hector Quintanilla, investigated the case and, five days after the incident, announced that the officers had first pursued a communications satellite and then the planet Venus. This conclusion was based on brief interviews with only one of the officers, ignoring other witnesses on the ground and the 130-kilometer duration of the pursuit. The official report did not explain how a satellite or Venus could descend to 15 meters above a road, move from side to side, or emit an electric hum, as witnesses reported.

These explanations were criticized not only by ufologists, but also by some scientists and the police themselves. No thorough investigation was conducted (apparently); rather, it seems they simply offered a more conventional explanation to “solve” the mystery of the case.

Newspaper article about the incident + a sketch of what the object looked like according to witnesses

This ties in with the previous rebuttal: the deliberate discrediting of witnesses. In this and other cases, the argument is often made that they simply mistook the event for natural phenomena or satellites, which is perfectly plausible and has, in fact, happened on many occasions. However, in the specific case of the Portage County incident, the pieces simply don’t fit. The details of the sighted object dispel any doubt that it could have been a satellite or even the planet Venus.

But this is not limited to this particular case. Often, in an effort to discredit the witnesses, one appeals to the observers’ alleged ignorance; in simple terms, they are considered so lacking in judgment or intelligence that they would be incapable of distinguishing something like the planet Venus from something completely different. Mind you, there would be nothing wrong with this if it were presented as a hypothesis, but, I repeat, it is often taken as fact.

This is clearly an insult to the witnesses’ intelligence and rational capacity, reducing them to “mere superstitious ignoramuses.” However, this isn’t the worst part, since this is often a common practice among scientists and science communicators. A prime example I can cite is Neil deGrasse Tyson.

Tyson, like most science communicators, is skeptical of the extraterrestrial hypothesis regarding UFOs, which is absolutely fine — not a problem at all. The problem arises when he engages in pseudo-skeptical practices, and as proof of this, I’ll quote a statement he made at a conference several years ago:

“So there was a police officer who was tracking a UFO that was swaying back and forth in the sky, ok? Reported on the patrol car. The car chasing the UFO and the UFO moving back and forth like this, ok? Later it turned out the car cop was chasing Venus! and he was driving on a curved road, but so distracted by Venus he thought was the one moving and he wasnt even think that he was doing.”

Neil deGrasse Tyson. “Cosmic Quandaries” lecture. The Palladium, St. Petersburg, FL. (2009).

Although it is not specified that he is referring to the same 1966 case, the data seems to indicate that he is. Tyson appears to have blindly accepted the explanation given by Major Hector Quintanilla in the Blue Book Project, ignoring all the criticism it received for its lack of rigor and completely disregarding the witnesses’ statements. It appears that this popular science communicator blindly accepted the official explanation, not because it was based on serious scientific research, but because it appeared to be the most “rational,” thereby falling into a bias — something, of course, contrary to true scientific rigor.

Of course, there is no way to know if what the officers saw were actually extraterrestrial vehicles; there could very well be another explanation that does not involve that. However, even if this were the case, nothing justifies belittling the witnesses’ intelligence or unquestioningly accepting an explanation without having conducted even the slightest bit of serious investigation.

Neil deGrasse Tyson, astrophysicist and science communicator

Another example I can cite is the famous Phoenix UFO incident, known as the “Phoenix Lights,” which occurred on the night of March 13, 1997, in the state of Arizona, United States. Thousands of people claimed to have seen strange lights moving across the sky, making it one of the most well-known and debated UFO cases in modern history. Eyewitness accounts described a massive V-shaped or boomerang-shaped formation moving slowly and in apparent silence, while some witnesses claimed the object appeared so large that it blocked out the stars in its path.

Hours later, another cluster of lights was observed over the city of Phoenix and was captured in numerous photographs and videos. This, combined with the large number of witnesses, led many to believe that a truly anomalous phenomenon had occurred, but as always, many tried to dismiss it.

One of the most debated points is the weight given to the testimony of Mitch Stanley, an amateur astronomer who observed the lights using a telescope. Stanley claimed that what many described as a huge V-shaped object was actually separate aircraft flying in formation. Because he used an optical aid, some skeptical analyses considered his observation “more reliable” than the numerous eyewitness accounts made with the naked eye.

The criticism arises because thousands of people described a massive, silent V-shaped structure, and some consider it methodologically inconsistent to dismiss a large portion of those accounts while granting disproportionate weight to a single testimony. Furthermore, Stanley may have observed only part of the event or a specific phase of the incident, so there is a possibility that different people were describing different phenomena or perceiving different aspects of the same phenomenon.

Therefore, treating the mass testimonies as “unreliable” but selectively accepting those that fit a predetermined conclusion is certainly far from a truly objective or rigorous practice. This sounds like textbook cherry-picking, which occurs when someone selects only the data or testimonies that support a conclusion and sets aside those that contradict it without a clear methodological justification.

Ockham’s Razor and the Dragon in the Garage

When discussing UFOs, two concepts often emerge as “final arguments”: Ockham’s Razor and Carl Sagan’s “dragon in the garage.” The problem is that, in many debates, they cease to function as analytical tools and instead become shortcuts used to prematurely close the discussion.

The philosopher William of Ockham formulated his principle as a guide for comparing explanations: if two hypotheses explain a phenomenon equally well, it is reasonable to prefer the one that does not introduce unnecessary assumptions. However, in popular usage, it often morphs into the idea that “the simplest explanation is the correct one,” which is a misleading simplification. In cases like UFOs, this leads to quick answers like “it was a plane” or “it was Venus,” as if that alone solved the case. The problem is that an explanation is not validated simply because it is conventional or simpler: it also has to fit the reported facts. Trajectory, duration, apparent speed, number of witnesses, and possible instrumental records matter. An explanation can be simpler and still be insufficient if it does not adequately account for those elements.

Something similar occurs with the “dragon in the garage,” an analogy by Carl Sagan in “The Demon-Haunted World”. His original aim was not to discuss UFOs or physical phenomena, but to illustrate how certain claims become problematic when they are designed in such a way that they escape any possibility of verification. It is an exercise in reasoning about unfalsifiable beliefs, especially in mystical or supernatural contexts.

The problem arises when this example is directly applied to the extraterrestrial hypothesis in complex UFO cases. It is often argued that, since the hypothesis can become “unfalsifiable” in some cases (especially when the evidence is ambiguous or inconclusive), it should not be considered valid or is even dismissed as non-existent. There are two major misunderstandings here: first, the fact that something is unfalsifiable in a specific case does not automatically make it true; that is correct. But second, it is also invalid to make the reverse leap and conclude non-existence solely for that reason.

Furthermore, the “dragon in the garage” was not designed as a method of empirical validation or as a general criterion for evaluating possible physical phenomena. It is a philosophical exercise involving deliberately constructed unfalsifiable statements, not scientifically plausible hypotheses such as the existence of extraterrestrial life. Applying it rigidly to such cases can end up blurring the distinction between “this is not proven” and “this cannot exist,” which are not equivalent.

Conclusion

For now, these were the main points. There may be more, but these are the ones most frequently observed. I repeat, my intention here is not to validate the extraterrestrial hypothesis; in other words, I am not claiming that UFOs are spacecraft of non-human origin, since neither I nor anyone else has empirical evidence to prove it. My intention is to show people that the criticisms they often level at the phenomenon to refute it are not always as solid as they think.

Nor do I intend to say that witnesses or people who make extraordinary claims should not be questioned, but rather that it must be done in an appropriate, truly rational manner, with respect and without adopting a completely closed-minded stance, since, otherwise, one will not exactly be “on the side of science,” as is often believed.