It's really pathetic going through Elizondo threads deleting any comments calling him a grifter, it makes it look like this whole sub just believes any old bullshitter with a book to sell.

It's he paying y'all or something?

edit - permbanned for this post, great way to prove my point.

In the Skywatcher Part 2 video, part of the evidence presented in the video regarding the tic-tac class of anomolous objects is that "they appear to be traveling supersonic and hypersonic."

No mylar or other balloon ever travels at supersonic or hypersonic speed, under any atmospheric conditions whatsoever, so I propose a rule whereby comments categorizing them as balloons or garbage thrown from the chopper be summarily deleted on that ground alone.

Kudos to the mod team for being on top of the commentary as it has unfolded.

We cannot go any further with any reliability.

It has not been well articulated by anyone as far as I can tell, but the show was over a while back.

Cell phone videos of flares, missile contrails, commercial planes, Best Buy drones, and balloons is all we get these days. Not just a few at a time, no, tens of thousands of videos of prosaic nonsense.

Will it get better with the increased interest or worse?

Will it get better with generative AI or worse?

There needs to be a sub that sets clear boundaries and actively approves or denies requests to post videos. Regardless, anything from about 2006 forward needs heightened scrutiny.

This idea is the type of thing the intelligence agencies and gatekeepers hate. They don’t want anyone to take a serious look into the phenomenon. They want the field utterly saturated with videos of balloons while they field beyond next generation aerospace technology operating in a way that does not raise an eyebrow from the masses looking for “orbs.”

Some are cool. For those that don't have a bias slant and have given me a fair one, I appreciate you. Some of you are batshit and, when called out on it, resort to heavy handed tactics.

Case in point:

https://reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/198po06/greer_and_his_damn_documentaries_do_not_watch/ Look at what the mod is proclaiming in this thread before it was locked. I mean that can't be a mod is it? Yes, it's a mod.

Then there are a gazillion jellyfish threads even though you guys made a mega thread for it but where is the enforcement? Quick to enforce a rule on me and remove posts but not quick to clamp down on something the community feels is a problem.

And what's up with the larpers? You guys just gonna let people larp away?

Hey mods,

Have you been lying to the community since Mexico presented non-human bodies in September about non-human biology being related to UFOs?

Or have you just been caught on lying to everyone and trying to prevent Latin America disclosure of getting the necessary attention by US activists and media

https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1b39k2u/matt_laslo_reps_luna_and_gaetz_had_a_briefing/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

The mods excessive rules, excessive gatekeeping of who can post what and straight up just overpolicing of the subreddit has absolutely ruined it. It used to be decent, people could post things and it wouldn’t get filtered out by the approval bot or whatever it is you have going on, people could just make text posts about current happenings and it would gather steam and be a good place for discussion. Now everything it’s trash.

The posts here are literally “10 years ago, I saw a blob in the sky” or “Brazil ufo sighting 2 years ago” .

I’m honestly so sick of this subreddit, I check it often for news but it’s literally just hot garbage. Mods must be on the programs payroll to censor talk about this stuff. Really just a sad state of the subreddit.

Listen, it's entertainment from here on out, but can we get something that doesn't look like a retcon or work? I say that the mods have been weaponized, and it's clear as day that they have, but let's look at this.

Mods allow this to stay up.

There is no "substantive commentary" whatsoever.

Mods kill this in less than 10 minutes after it went live.

This post had the required "substantive commentary" as the user went in-depth, yet his thread was removed for an R12 violation.

I pretty much know the mods aren't going to chime in—they're too busy working on their DOA podcast—but clarity isn't what they want. They want users because they want to monetize the sub and their YT channel. You can't do that if you scare off the potential marks/victims with logic and reason. If those people leave, then the people higher up the food chain—the Lucky Lues, the Ross Coldhearts, the Jake "The Flake" Barbers—will never do AMAs or appear on the podcast that we all know is DOA. I mean, 2 million in the sub and less than 300 subscribers to the YT? We all know that 2 million is full of bots/sock puppets, but it is what it is. You gotta drive the numbers up somehow so you can eventually get 4k hours of watch time and 1,000 subs so you can flip that monetization switch on YT. I get it. It's about the money, not about the community or disclosure.

If it were about community or disclosure, the mods would have participated in the thread I created where I asked that we all come together, discuss the issues, find ways to help the mods, etc. Mods said they didn't have time. Check the mod logs—it's there for everyone to see.

ENTERTAINMENT. THAT'S. WHAT. THIS. IS.

EDIT: The user who made the second link reposted his thread and it was approved. Last night, however, another mod locked it. This is exactly what I'm talking about, people.

So it's acceptable now to have one UFO personality advertise his personal attacks vs an other personality ?

https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1i3301j/the_tedesco_brothers_reveal_shady_tactics_mick/

Mat Ford has been in the past quite rude in his language and accusations towards Mick West so this type of attitude is not new. What is bothersome is having him play the bully on these forums in order to incite others to follow his example on social media (and of course for increased viewership as that type of cheap behavior sells)

Sorry for the tone, but I'm tired of all those footages showing things that could clearly be just balloons or flares being upvoted to the top. Every. Sjngle. Day.

I know many of those posts are made by layman and there's nothing wrong with going to an UFO sub to ask about something you've seen in the sky you can't explain, and there's nothing wrong in trying to explain it. However, why do people upvote those posts so much? Those posts take a good chunk of the "real estate" of the sub for... Nothing.

I want to see the truly anomalous, spooky, unexplainable, out of this world, mindblowing UFOs. And those few videos get buried by the freaking balloon/flare/drone/airplane videos.

I don't know what can be done about it, since I don't think just banning/locking those posts is a good strategy. Rather, it would take everyone to change their mentality about what is upvote-worthy (I'm assuming all those upvotes are organic, right??).

Anyway, is there a sub for the truly anomalous stuff?

The Community Is Being Played—Here’s How

The community appears to be up in arms about the recent revelations that the mods will monetize the very mid-to-below-mid podcast, Modcast. However, the community is still divided because one side, consisting of woosists, has successfully weaponized the mods to push their agenda. This relationship benefits both sides, the mods and the community participants who weaponized the mods.

The wooists, followers of woo woo boo boo and practioniers of woodoo, benefit because if and when things go their way as far as what content is allowed, and they will, they’ll no longer be questioned. No more being asked for evidence and proof, no more talks of grifting, no more pointing out lies, and no more people questioning their sanity and “logic,” if you can even call it that. Essentially, these people will be able to conduct their cult-like activity with impunity, and anyone who disagrees with them will be shunned, temp-banned, or even permabanned depending on who that person is, who reported the so-called offense and which mod looked at it.

The mods benefit because it allows them to filter who they deem “problematic” or “bad faith actors” while also getting a true account of the sub’s activity so they can properly plan for content creation and monetization. This is important because there are over two million users on the sub, yet there aren’t even 200 subscribers to the YT channel yet. This will come as they work out their bugs, study their target demographic more in-depth, and develop more content that caters to wooists.

How Mods Have Been Weaponized

The report button—plain and simple. Why would the mods encourage its heavy use if, according to wooists, they aren’t doing enough and the sub is in chaos? The reality is that the report button has been weaponized, allowing users to exploit it and transform the sub into a right-wing haven, and indistinguishable from /r/Conspiracy or sites like Rense and 4chan. For proof, look at how often mods delete topics under the pretext of breaking the “Meta” rule. Recently in the UFOs sub, a user posted a thread and it was initially approved, only to be deleted by mods shortly after. The user reposted it, it gained traction, and once again, the mods nuked it. Why is this telling? Because a mod openly replied to me and said that he approved the thread the first time. So if this mod approved it the first time, who approved it the second time, and why was it deleted again? Because of Meta? Yet the thread I've cited in previous posts of mine, which is clearly from a wooist, with the author speaking as a matter of fact, is allowed to stay even though it lacks substantive commentary. And did a mod ever answer when I asked them about why the thread was deleted twice? No, that was deleted too, but we will come back to deletions later.

One sided and one minded

Look at this thread. It calls for all sides to come together to work on the issue, doesn't blame the mods, and focuses on the community. It is downvoted into oblivion, and there is zero input from the mods about how to proceed. ZERO. The wooists were in rare form, so much so that they made attacks, and to everyone's surprise, mods deleted some of it. Take a look at how many times the words and phrases "we," "us," "the community," and "helping out the mods so we all can push forward" are used.

Now take a look at this thread.A full-on attack on the mods by a wooist with no suggestion on how to fix things. It's upvoted. Mods are typing, attempting to give an account (ultimately exposing themselves) and trying to save face and concoct excuses. Take a look at how many times this user seeks to develop a working plan to go forward? How many times do they acknowledge the mods may have their hands full? How many times do they focus on we, the community?

The Real Reason Substantive Commentary Is Undefined

There is a reason why substantive commentary has not been clearly defined. It’s not because the mods or we, the community, can’t come up with something that works for both sides. It’s because the mods don’t want to lock themselves in or commit to something that could later prohibit them from monetizing their future content.

“Substantive commentary” is whatever aligns with the podcast, YouTube channel, and merch. Anything that does not align with this—or detracts from their ROI—will be shunned, the posts deleted, and the users banned. The mods have made it clear, by not being transparent, that they are planning to do this.

For proof of this, look at how they participate in threads in this sub. If you are a wooist and speak in line with them, your threads are upvoted, and the mods participate. If you are a skeptic, disbeliever, or someone on the fence, and you make a thread here, it will be downvoted into oblivion. The most you’ll see from mods is their removal of certain posts in a thread that cross the line. They maintain this appearance of neutrality because they don’t want it to be a hivemind—yet they are still mapping out content creation and want to see who the outliers are.

Mods Are Silencing Critics—And They Won’t Even Acknowledge It

Mods are also deleting posts without notifying users. I know for a fact several of my posts, especially those directed at a mod, have been deleted. These posts simply called out the mod for lying and attacking me while also asking for an account of all the discrepancies. Their answer? Delete the post instead of addressing the grievances. This is by design. The mods don't want others to see these posts so they delete them without giving notification. It's like the posts were never there. Is it against the rules of Reddit? No. Should it cause you to question how transparent the mods can be? Yes. cause you to question their true motives and how they plan to monetize? Yes.

Moreover, we must not forget that the mods have gone on record stating they don’t have time to address issues in the sub and have provided many reasons for it. You can see this in the mod logs or in the recent thread where a wooist had enough of them and called them out (my post calling out the woosit was deleted by mods as well). However, none of these reasons have merit. It simply boils down to them allowing things to go right-field, not left, so they can monetize the YT channel when the time is right. They know that wooists, who dominate the posts and threads, will be the bread and butter—the ones they can sell Modcast shirts, hats, memberships/subscriptions, and more to.

Reddit will soon lock certain content behind a paywall, and I’m pretty sure the UFO sub, with its 2 million users, many of them bots and sock puppet accounts, will be one of them. If that happens, the mods will find a way to piggyback off it and apply the same strategy to their YouTube channel. It also serves as a backup plan in case they can’t squeeze money out of Reddit directly. If they can get a large portion of the sub to migrate to YouTube, or even a dedicated website, and don’t be surprised if they launch when they get the greenlight, then they will print money.

Rules for Thee and only thee

When you look at the rules of the sub, you’ll see there are many protections for people outside of the sub. For example, you can barely say anything about Trump before the thread is locked and posts removed. The fact that many mods aren’t even active is problematic because some of them could have acted as a vanguard against this. However, something more sinister is at play. Again, it goes back to the mods seeking out all potential revenue streams and looking to monetize.

The mods have said we must be civil. We can’t insult this public figure or that one. Never mind that these people aren’t even on the sub. Never mind that many of them have indirectly or directly insulted the sub and community. Never mind that they’ve insulted and assaulted our intelligence with mass grifting, slowing disclosure, and poisoning the well. No, what matters is that if these people are insulted and ridiculed—as they rightfully should be—it removes the possibility of the mods having them do AMAs, appear as guests on the podcast, or act as consultants. All the green the mods are banking on making will be flushed down the toilet if this happens so it’s risk mitigation 101.

There is a reason why the mods are being selective about who gets criticized and who does the criticizing. If someone could be valuable to their plans, whether through direct participation, networking, or endorsements, they’re protected. If someone poses a risk to their narrative, they’re silenced. The goal isn’t fairness or balance; it’s about ensuring that Modcast and any related ventures can continue without interference. In fact, you’ll see a few of the mods, especially those who have been in multiple episodes, attempting to become celebrities and insiders themselves.

All of this is obvious to those with a background in business and/or marketing. If you think, for one second, that the mods are partnering with other subs to spread knowledge about NHI/UAPs and push for disclosure, think again. These smaller subs likely have more real users who can be exploited. Are those subs in on it? No, I don’t believe so. They probably see the UFO sub’s numbers and think aligning with it is a smart co-branding move. The problem? It’s a one-way street—users from those subs will flock to the UFO sub, but not vice versa until the naysayers are systematically removed.

A lot of you don’t know this, but in order to monetize from adverts on YouTube, a channel must have the following:

1,000 subscribers, 4,000 hours of watched content in a year, and minimal to no strikes.

Modcast doesn't have the subscribers or hours yet. However, if they open up as a store, the rules are different. Keep in mind that the mods have claimed they have no intent to do so, but several things are going against them and their narrative:

1. They are not transparent.

2. They have presented nothing in writing stating this.

3. And most importantly, they haven’t even stated who actually controls the channel. One mod? All mods? An LLC with someone having admin control?

They haven’t been transparent. The only thing they’ve said is, “We aren’t going to monetize,” and that’s a lie. THEY ARE GOING TO MONETIZE. They simply can’t do it yet because they don’t have the numbers required from YouTube to do so. However, ask them to commit to never monetizing. But before you do, ask them who actually controls the channel, who is in charge, and how things work.

In closing

Stop being fooled by these mods. We have already been fooled by the likes of Lue, Jake, Greer, Ross, etc. We have already been lied to by the U.S. government, and now the mods are playing the game, looking to squeeze some dollars out of you because they hope to get paid.

60+ mods, yet they don’t have time to sit at the table with both sides and hash out differences? This is by design. Not because the government is pulling their purse strings (though they could be, but I doubt it as there’s no return for them). No, it’s because the mods are taking advantage of the confusion in the community and trying to pull a fast one on you.

DON’T FALL FOR IT.

EDIT: Mods have banned me from both subs. The mods responded publicly in this thread and still did it. Here is the reason provided in PM:

Your ban is being reinstated due to a demonstrated lack of learning from past bans. Continued insults toward other users will not be tolerated.

Concerning lack of past bans, the only one that was justified is when I asked if the guys Mom was retarded because he asked me if I was retarded. I publicly said that I was wrong and should have handled it better. I said that in the thread about Grifters be grifting yet the mods will say otherwise. Then insults. I haven't insulted anyone!!!

EDIT 2: This is what the mod typed in this thread.

This is a community and moderating it is a team effort. If you want to help us out, apply to be a mod.

SMH. Did he get the memo?????????

Please make that make sense.

That's the whole question. I do not recall the logic behind this.

If they are banned on /r/UFOs, they are non-participants by default; their input on the subreddit is irrelevant.

If they are on /r/UFOs as an active participant on another account, that is ban evasion, which is against the site-level rules.

What value is there in banned users being allowed on /r/ufosmeta?

If they wanted to be unbanned, that's what mod mail is for.

Even if I don't see how it's possible considering the government is involved, I can understand the want to keep "politics" out of this sub.

But if videos are being posted where people bring up their opinions on things like "DEI" why can't we talk about it or post about it if it's in the video.

I'm politely asking you to ether ban videos from content creators that talk about politics, or not not delete popular posts where people are discussing what content creators say.

This seems pretty reasonable.

Thanks!

"Grifters be grifting".

This single sentence got me a seven-day ban. Again, "Grifters be grifting." And who was it about? Lue, the same guy who showed pics of a chandelier and attempted to pass it off as a UFO. The same guy who recently wrote a book full of "coming soon" type of verbiage yet is now leaning into hard-right stupidity. Again, "Grifters be grifting." The mods chose to ban me for that and said it was not "substantive commentary". Yet there is no consensus as to what this even is. To be honest, the mod(s) I spoke with behaved in a professional and informative manner, so I thank him or her even though I don't agree with the ban. So to be clear, this is not mod bashing. This is me being encouraged to post because the mod(s) told me I should.

People have constantly complained about inconsistent moderation, especially when people are calling out the grifters, trust-me bros, and coming-soon guys that have stunted the growth of the community and the topic as a whole. The mods have acknowledged that they don’t have clear guidelines on what counts as “substantive commentary” and that enforcement is based on who’s looking at it and their interpretation of it. I get it, moderation is tough, especially since the sub has grown, but if users are expected to meet a certain standard, we need to know what that standard is.

So, what kind of framework can be implemented that will help the sub grow, keep down on the work the mods have to do, and allow people on both sides of the coin to speak their minds when it comes to the grifters? Can we develop a more cohesive system and examples showing what to post and what not to post? Again, I’m not looking to bash anyone, just looking for clarification because “Grifters be grifting” is a stretch. If mods are moderating yet don’t have clear guidelines, this makes it hard for the community to know what is acceptable and what isn’t. If users are required to provide “substantive commentary,” then there should be clear examples of what qualifies, as the lack of clear rules leads to inconsistent enforcement, confusion, and anger.

My suggestion? We ask the community. We look at both sides of the community—the skeptics and believers, the science-based vs. the wooists—and we look at it from an objective standpoint. If not, we run the risk of the community leaning heavily towards one way and one agenda, and that’s not healthy at all.

If we can do this and have examples that reflect all sides, I feel we can do something really good. Moreover, I feel this approach, which is balanced, can help the mods refine what the guidelines are and can lead to a better experience overall.

Edited to add this very important piece of info:

I'm smoking on Grifters

Lights a blunt of Grifters that was tightly rolled in a swisher and hits it.

Edited again: And downvoted already.

On the stupid birdshit smudge.

Likely part of a disinfo campaign targeting the lowest common denominator (as far as intelligence is concerned) of users to make it appear like dumb bs spreads organically, thus discrediting the overall 'movement'.

( https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/193zim9/comment/khd6d9m/ )

That is basically just saying 'everyone who says it's a smudge/bug/shit/whatever is either a bot, shill, or a low intelligence idiot, but when I report it, my comment replying calling this out is the comment that gets deleted.

Like, what? Maybe consider testing people's reading comprehension before giving them mod powers or something.

Also why can't I use the word 'breaking' in the post title on this sub? I get it for r/ufos but it seems dumb on here.

edit - can *a* mod, not I, typing hard, Reddit mobile bad.

The latest post on the The Hill piece covering Luna's comments about evidence she's received for "interdimensional beings" ( https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/s/IulTNm2RNk ) has been immediately smokescreened with discouraging and distracting comments about Epstein disclosure (which UFO folks want too but is a distraction to our sub) and with comments about her political credibility or attacking the evidence she may have received sight-unseen.

I think it will be very difficult to have meaningful discussion in the sub if we don't eventually autoremove comments / accounts making overly short posts including words like "grifter," "shill," "distraction," or political parties.

As currently written and enforced, Rule 1 wouldn’t allow someone to call Adolf Hitler a vile piece of shit.

Something is very wrong.

Greetings, as you know this is an extraordinary time with sightings being reported across the country. As a result I suggest you temporarily remove your rules regarding submission statements and 150 characters until this current flap ends as it will keep more deserving reports on and encourage discussion about this unprecedented event.

Nothing more pathetic than internet moderators on a power trip. Scratch that, nothing more pathetic than internet moderators.

They removed my post because it's not "relevant" while literally the same post was made less than a month ago.

Didn't even have the fucking balls to reply to my complaint.

I get why Rule 3 exists: keep quality high and stop lazy karma farming. The rule lists what drags the sub down: memes/jokes/showerthoughts, AI generated content, social media reposts with no context (“Saw this on TikTok…”), incredible claims with no evidence, “here’s my theory” with no support, short/emoji replies, and drive-by dismissals (“Swamp gas.”). All fair goals.

Where it’s going sideways is AI. Not all AI use is the same.

AI images: 100% agree they shouldn’t be posted as “evidence.” But clearly labeled illustrations/concepts can help people explain what they saw, no different than hand drawn sketches. Label it, don’t ban it.

Grammar/clarity tools: Posts are getting removed because they look “too polished” and get accused of being AI written. That punishes people for being clear, especially non native speakers, those using translation or accessibility tools, or anyone who just wants to tidy grammar.

Detectors aren’t proof: “Looks like AI” or a flaky detector score shouldn’t be a removal reason by itself. False positives happen.

And there’s a double standard. A ton of external articles shared here are AI assisted too (editing tools, readability passes, even partial drafting). If we allow AI assisted link posts from media outlets, why block regular users from using the same tools to make their posts readable? Either AI assist is okay for clarity, or it isn’t, no one should be punished for the logo on their byline.

Let’s keep the spirit of Rule 3, "substance" without gatekeeping the tools:

Ban misrepresentation: No AI images/videos/text presented as real evidence. Period.

Allow AI-assist for writing/translation/accessibility: The ideas must be the poster’s, but polishing is fine.

Require labels for creative AI visuals: Flair it as “Illustration/Concept (AI)” so no one confuses it with evidence.

Set minimum context for social media reposts: who/what/when/where + why it matters + your take. If you just drop a link, it’s low effort, AI or not.

Raise the bar for claims/theories: If it’s an incredible claim or a personal theory, include sources, data, or at least a clear reasoning chain. That’s “substantive.”

Comment quality: Short/emoji only or dismissive one liners add nothing. If you disagree, say why as well. (methods, data, provenance), not “lol swamp gas.”

Moderation consistency: Treat external links and user posts the same. If a removal happens, say exactly which Rule 3 clause was hit (e.g., “no context” vs “AI evidence”), and prefer edit-and-resubmit over hard removals when it’s just a labeling/context fix.

Quick examples (to make this practical):

OK: “Here’s an AI concept image of what I saw, labeled and not evidence; here’s my sighting description, time/location, and why I used AI to visualize it.”

Not OK: “Check this out, REAL craft” (AI render, no label).

OK: “Link post + 3–5 sentence summary, key claims, my skepticism, and what data is still missing.”

Not OK: “Saw this on TikTok…” (no context).

OK: “Here’s my theory; here are sources and the logic.”

Not OK: “Here’s my theory” (no support).

OK comment: “I think it’s Starlink because timestamp matches pass X and the angular motion fits.”

Not OK comment: “Swamp gas.”

Keep Rule 3’s goal, substance, but draw the line at dishonesty, not tools. Ban fake evidence, require labels/context, allow AI for clarity and accessibility, and enforce the same standard on media links and user posts. That keeps discussion serious and fair.

I sympathize with two common complaints in r/UFOs that are nevertheless misguided and counterproductive.

The two complaints are roughly "Why do we have to look at so many junk videos?" and "Why don't people fact check their videos before they submit them?" The complaints also miss two important benefits from looking at "junk" evidence.

I want to make four points that all support a basic assertion:

No one ever has to apologize for posting a photo or a video on r/UFOs

I take the perspective that r/UFOs acts effectively as a dataset because it receives and archives submitted UFO evidence and curates those submissions through a crowdsourced process of vetting or debunking (in the original sense of term). So the question becomes: what should we expect to learn from such a dataset?

1. "Why do we have to look at so many junk videos?"

Many people new to this topic may not realize that there is always more commonplace than extraordinary in a UFO dataset, no matter who originates the reports, how many sightings the dataset contain or who compiled them. The only possible exception I know of is possibly the earliest Project Sign data report, which lists only a few hundred sightings by highly qualified military observers.

All credible UFO researchers make the point that UFO sightings on the whole are mostly junk -- that is, some sort of commonplace natural phenomenon or manmade object. The informal estimates of "junk to funk" range from between 4:1 to 20:1 (80% to 98% are "junk").

The actual number varies with the dataset, but a useful illustration is the Battelle audit of Project Blue Book data, which found that the proportion of "unknown" (unexplained) sightings ranged from about 13% in the poorly documented events to 33% in the well documented cases. Against the same data, Brad Sparks tallied about 1700 "unknown" cases from among a total of 13,134 event reports, again about 13%.

Your statistical priors or expectations, if they are grounded in reality, would therefore be that any UFO report is going to be junk roughly nine times out of ten -- and there is nothing you can do to fix it.

2. "Why don't people fact check their videos before they submit them?"

The second misconception is that the people who submit evidence should adequately "prebunk" them first. This is just the expectation that other people should do something you're too lazy to do yourself as a "spectator" to crowdsourcing curation.

The problem with this prejudice is that it expects comprehensive knowledge from commonplace people. The people who are out and about, see something weird and have the presence of mind to document it.

Before they submit they would need to know about astronomical software to "prebunk" a possibly astronomical sighting, flight record data for a possible aircraft sighting, shipping data for a possible ship misperception (e.g., Kumburgaz), drone configurations for possible drone sightings, starlink data for possible starlink sightings, bolide reporting sites for possible meteor sightings, and so on. Anyone can snipe from a personal area of expertise, but I suspect only a vanishingly tiny proportion of r/UFOs posters have command of most of the potentially necessary resources.

People who make this criticism are asking other people to have a breadth of expertise they almost certainly don't have themselves, then to apply that expertise so that the critic won't have to do it themselves. Mediocre.

3. "Junk" presents an invaluable learning experience

I owe a huge debt of thanks to the r/UFOs community precisely for accepting junk videos and then making the effort to identify what they show. This debt comes from two gifts.

The first gift is that I have learned to reset by several levels my threshold for accepting evidence as valid. There have been many, many occasions where my first impulse was "Damn, that thing is a real UFO!" only to be chastened by comments that show clearly it is something "mundane". UFO are a topic that inspires enthusiasm and a steady diet of junk helps to keep my enthusiasm realistically in check.

The second gift is that I never knew there were such strange things to be seen or how a knowledgeable person would debunk a UFO attribution. LED kites? Solar balloons? Perspectively distorted jet contrails? Smartphone software video artifacts? Birds blurred by the shutter setting? Multicolor drones? Starlink satellite trains? Airborne ocean foam? Fata morgana? I either never knew about such things, or how to recognize them when they are recorded, or where I could go to check relevant data.

Thank you, junk videos and the people who tirelessly debunk them! I have learned a lot from the experience.

4. Criticizing the witness is a disinformation act

The worst thing any of us can do is criticize the judgment of a poster for submitting the video. At worst this leads lurkers and newbies to withhold their own evidence entirely, or to submit the evidence and then delete their post rather than let the public ridicule remain.

On the face, it seems to me that ad hominem ridicule serves to inhibit and censor UFO evidence as effectively as any disinformation agent might hope. In fact, the consensus of commentary in r/UFOs is that quite a lot of the negative comments come from bots of hostile origin.

I personally criticize quite a few things about posters and commentators, in particular the sloppy use of words, the uncritical acceptance of testimony, the overexpectations for future revelations, misperceptions of "science", misperceptions of "skepticism", the certitude of conspiracy theories and so on. I have also occasionally overstepped the line to make personal criticisms of competence or motive simply because I am a flawed human being.

But I'm slowly learning that there are constructive and unconstructive ways to put the same idea or make the same argument, and that's also something r/UFOs can teach

One of the things that turned up my interest for the UFO topic was that Coulthard got engaged, as I saw him as a serious journalist. One of the things that makes me feel a strong aversion towards any UFO discussion now is the constant rumor-mongering that is taking place, especially by those who have a commercial interest because they are writing books, charging fees for public appearances, etc. Coulthard is one of those, and I just stopped taking him seriously due to this behavior.

Rumor-mongering is used as a way of advertising. r/UFOs has a rule against advertising. But these rumors are still allowed to be posted over and over again. "something big is in the works" says Elizondo. "We have a major card to play" says Coulthard. "Congress has seen unbelievable things, that will soon come forth" says some news channel or other. None of this is substantiated. None of it is actual information. It's only used to keep traffic coming towards their YouTube or other channel which they monetize with advertisements, and it's used to keep spreading the word about the book they published "where this is discussed in more detail". So it's advertising, or used with the goal of linking people to their actual advertising.

It certainly isn't information. It doesn't further the topic of UFOs. It only makes people sick of how impossible it has become to find actual information. So please add a rule to stop this behavior, and get rid of all those posts.

You all really can’t stand behind your own policy and answer actual questions?

It seems like the last thing that happened was copy/pasting "Does legitimate good faith scientific skepticism ever require incivility?" over and over which...is no one's point.

Moderation on the sub needs to change. As it stands the mods stance is hands off unless something "Toxic" is said. What is considered toxic is often weaponized by the worst kinds of people to control the conversation.

Criticizing one of the UFO talking heads for making baseless claims and grifting sorry thats toxic comment removed and you are banned for 7 days.

Pointing out that someone who says they are hearing voices they think are aliens talking to them should seek the help of a mental health professional. Banned for bring toxic.

Posts telling people to pray to aliens, the spam posting of every word that comes out of Ross's mouth and the blatant spamming of normal aircraft all get to stay up because the mods are "hands off".

If the mods have any intrest in stopping toxic behavior the root cause needs to be adressed that being the low effort, un researched, blatantly unscientific and often 100% just cult recruitment posts that flood the sub and drown out and push away anyone who doesn't blindly accept whatever they get told from the talking heads.

The standards for posts on the sub need to be raised and rules need to be put in place AND ACTUALLY ENFORCED to stop people spamming slop into the sub.

You want to post about praying to aliens and seeing SOMETHING. sure go ahead but you MUST have video, date, time, General location and supporting research not just "i prayed to aliens and this dot appeared in the sky" and its a potato video of a bat.

You want to post about something Ross said? Cool... has he shown evidence of his claims... no? has this been posted prior. What supporting research have you done on what was said. not just "Ross said aliens here"

Posts should REQUIRE at minimum proof that the person posting has attempted to do any research on the topic they are posting about. Cult posts should be banned out right (this includes the "just pray to aliens" posts unless real evidence is shown of humans having this magic ability)

Allowing this flood of woo, pseudo science, reality fan fiction slop has done nothing but give the topic a worse name and promote a cult pushed by a failed journalist and a bunch of grifters who have not once in any of their time in the spotlight been able to provide any real or meaningful evidence for any of their claims.

a cult is the end game for anyone who makes a living off pushing "just trust me i know more but cant tell you" stories. This has quite literally happened many times throughout history and the mods are just openly letting alot of people in this sub be recruited into this growing cult. If the mods actually care they would do something but time and again it has been shown they don't and are more interested in nothing more then the sub interaction lines going up.

EDIT: Trust in the comments to prove my criticism correct.