For Questions That Don't Merit Their Own Thread

[SunlitZelkova]

4 hours ago, DDE said:

I would would strongly disagree with the wording of the question. For starters, alien visitation and cryptozoology afford room for an iteration where Da Guberment isn't hushing anything because they're don't know much more than the average Joe - e.g. the aliens are hiding from them too.

Then you have the variation in that these theories do not always correlate with anti-intellectual / anti-intelligentsia / anti-science views; usually the conspiracy involves not all individual scientists but Big Science and/or Da Guberment oppressing individual scientists. The tendency of such theories to be promoted by "truth-seeking" / "dissident" faux-scientists in labcoats touting crooked credentials is indicative, I think, of not all scientists getting written off as in on the conspiracy. There's also the angle of the phenomenon being "too advanced" for scientists who don't use the theory-maker's esoteric methods of knowledge acquisition, and so they deny it out of ignorance rather than malicious conspiracy.

I suppose what I am really pondering is whether theorizing on concepts that are in contradiction of known physical laws- like pushing extraterrestrial visitation reports as true when we more or less know such things to be impossible given the nature of how the reports usually occur- or pushing unfalsifiable theories as science (interdimensional hypothesis on UFOs and the simulation theory) would constitute a denial of science. That is, if ufology rejects certain tenets of “mainstream”/actual science, is it really all that different from full on science denialism, which rejects science as a whole?

Does a “partial” rejection of science constitute a rejection of science as a whole?

I suppose the answer would be an obvious yes*, but ufology and the like are not classified as science denialism. So the very core of my query is- what separates pseudoscience and science denialism? Why are they considered separate entities?

EDIT*- yes, it is an obvious yes *facepalm*

Edited December 30, 2022 by SunlitZelkova

[kerbiloid]

31 minutes ago, SunlitZelkova said:

in contradiction of known physical laws- like pushing extraterrestrial visitation reports as true when we more or less know such things to be impossible

No known physical laws deny them. Absence of positive result doesn't mean presence of negative, it's just undefined.

31 minutes ago, SunlitZelkova said:

or pushing unfalsifiable theories as science (interdimensional hypothesis on UFOs and the simulation theory) would constitute a denial of science

Not a denial of science, but possible science-based rational explanations which can be proven or disproven.
"Falsifiable/unfalsifiable" can be applied to a theory, and this is a brainstorm, where you are free to bring more proven hypothesis as a theory and thus disprove others if its evidences are scientifically solid.

31 minutes ago, SunlitZelkova said:

That is, if ufology rejects certain tenets of “mainstream”/actual science, is it really all that different from full on science denialism, which rejects science as a whole?

I (together with my shift) personally have seen a "milk-white smooth triangle"-type UFO, quickly  and soundlessly  passing right over our airdrome, in clear weather,  at enough low altitude to be clearly seen.

I have no idea what it was (a special plane, an alien ship, a supernatural invasion, a temporal hole from future, or what), but definitely not a mass hallucination.

Should I have a scientific explanation? No, it's just an empirical expirience.

Another things is those "patterns" in the crop fields which are "of course made for fun by bored farmers".

In Soviet times my dad was piloting a plane over Tajikistan crop and cotton fields, and from time to time had seen those patterns.

You can be sure, that nobody in: 1. Soviet. 2. Tajikistan would be playing on collective farm fields this way.
It's much easier to imagine a Jinn coming from Mars to do that, than a Soviet Central Asia tractorist in this role.

It's just absolutely excluded, as they have much simpler rural entertainments, and such act of sabotage would be investigated highly seriously.

Edited December 30, 2022 by kerbiloid

[DDE]

2 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

So the very core of my query is- what separates pseudoscience and science denialism? Why are they considered separate entities?

The difference is that between an impostor police officer, and a black-clad guy graffiting (spelling?) the back wall of a police station. Pseudoscientists don't want to carpet-bomb the credibility of science as a whole because they build their own credibility off of it. Science deniers (if we peel away the use of the term as a political slur) usually are looking to attack the institution and, in extreme cases, the method itself, as part of a class struggle and/or counter-cultural agenda.

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

12 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

Does a “partial” rejection of science constitute a rejection of science as a whole

No. 

I'm going to have to dance with the forum rules - but my response requires it. 

I have a sister who is a doctor.  A very good one.  Her resume includes three prestigious universities you and anyone mildly familiar with America will be familiar with and acknowledge as top end. 

Sometime in the early years of her practice she met a nice guy who works in computer science and whose whole family life revolves around his church.  They married and she joined the church. 

For context, she and I were raised in a household where we claimed a religion but did not participate in any particular organization of the faith.  Once married, my sister's life became very involved with the church she joined - not just 'church on Sunday' (an insult, btw) but 'living the Word'. 

The Arabic word 'Islam' means 'submitting to God.' This would be a good description for what participants of this very mainstream Christian Church expect of members of their community.  'Faith' is in effect an obligation and the 'Word' is a mystery and when you find something in conflict with 'The Word' it is your burden to resolve the problem in favor of the interpretation given by the Church.  They also expect you to Live the Word publicly - which means you talk about it a lot and try to share your thoughts with everyone.  (Effectively self-policing but also creates communal expectations). 

So where her faith is not in conflict with the science she's learned - there is no problem.  But any 'tie-goes-to-the-runner' situation is always resolved in favor of the Church. 

This is enormously common across the US.  Further, the US has a historical cultural participation in religiosity that is unique and distinct from other nations.  The gamut is broad.

 

Now - take a slice of the population that is already predisposed to prioritize beliefs over facts - and then make facts difficult to acquire (like hiding them behind the gates of a University and degree programs) and have the educated conditioned to use inaccessible words when describing 'science'?  The result should not be that surprising. 

Further compound this with the way the human brain works - where it is constantly trying to create patterns out of perceptions and 'a world view' where things are predictable - and let that person have an experience they don't comprehend... They know they had it - but it is outside of their faith and knowledge - and someone explains 'Space Aliens' to them (and that someone else with power and money knows the truth and is hiding it)... Suddenly, that 'makes sense'.  That person will honestly and earnestly express their truth to people around them and others will believe and support them. 

None of which is in conflict with the science they know.  Internal combustion engine (science) just works, so it's not a problem.  They don't 'deny' it out of hand as science = evil. 

But because so much of 'science' is behind pay-walls and not part of the common experience... Effectively anyone believing in Science is asking everyone else around them to have faith in their education and knowledge. 

So... Since the good Reverend Doctor (Ph.D) is saying one thing and the Professor Doctor (Ph.D) is saying another... Which expert do you believe?  Whose faith do you have confidence in? 

Next- take a smaller slice of people (still, millions) who are not part of a mainstream Church that functions across society (one where their faith and science are not too much in conflict) and if those people also haven't had the benefit of a good education?  Then, expose them to the internet. 

They are going to find communities of people who believe all kinds of stuff and be drawn into those who have similar interests and experiences.  Without recognizing it they soon find themselves in a self-reinforced echo chamber of things other people might label as weird, but that make sense to them and their internet friends. 

...

So - some perspective:  I've been labeled as a denier because I don't toe the line on the doctrine of GW and LCDM (keeping an open mind and asking questions = heresy).  I seriously doubt that the label applies - but the accusation has been leveled - and earnestly. 

Thus, to my mind, the phrase 'science denial' paints with a very broad brush. 

Do I, who have studied not only science but the history of Christianity, find my sister (the MD) 'science denying' in some of the things she now espouses since immersing herself in her faith?  Sure.  Is she objectively 'science denying'?  No.

Spoiler

(Can I stand to be in the same room as some of her Church friends when they opine about some of the things they believe that conflict with actual science?  Also, No.  Note: people of Faith resent it when you bring up the logical inconsistencies of the doctrine espoused by Augustine of Hippo - and that most of their present Church doctrine did not reflect Christian thought prior to 400 AD.  Especially when you point out that the precepts of 'Doctrine' are Priest and Church-as-Institution favoring over what early Christians actually thought /believed or what Jesus's ministry was all about - yeah, they don't appreciate it at all.)

So - back to your question:  Does 'a “partial” rejection of science constitute a rejection of science as a whole' - and I think you have to look at 'science denialism' as a spectrum - or perhaps take it on a point-by-point basis. 

Oddly - I have to accept that a flat earther or an Area 51 conspirist is on the same spectra as someone who doubts GW is going to kill us all in the next 100 years:  there are things of science both accept (internal combustion, computer science) and things they don't (the earth is round, the worst-case scenario is guaranteed and soon). 

Edited December 30, 2022 by JoeSchmuckatelli

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

12 hours ago, K^2 said:

NAT definitely works differently in IPv4 vs IPv6, so yeah, I can see how net code designed to work with IPv4 NAT might be a problem here.

For a little bit of a context, NAT is short for Network Address Translation, and any additional letters around it point to different ways it can be accomplished. I'm not an expert in how any of that works, but the gist is that under IPv4, because there aren't that many addresses (a little over 4 billion total combinations), your router at home gets its own WAN (wide area network) address, and any computers connected through it have to share it. So, maybe your PC is connected to the router directly, and your laptop and your cell phone are on WiFi on that same router - from perspective of greater internet, they all share an IPv4 address. But for your router to talk to each device, it assigns its own LAN (local area network) address to each device.

So when you ask for a page of this forum, the server sends it back with your router's address, and your router has to figure out if you requested it from your PC, laptop, or cell phone (in the above example). When you are connected through TCP (which is used for all web requests), the router can look at additional information in the packet to match response to a request, and it knows which LAN address to forward it to.

This gets complicated with games, however. Not only are they using the UDP, but you might also be the one hosting the server. When another player connects to you, the very first packet telling that they want to connect arrives at your router, and without some additional mechanism, your router has no idea where to send it to. Something in the game has to tell the router that you'll be expecting a request and where it should be forwarded. There are a number of different ways this can work (including IP spoofing in some older UDP games...) and none of it is completely fool proof.

IPv6 is different. Because there are a lot of addresses available, your router doesn't just get an address, it gets a range. It assigns sub-ranges to devices on the LAN, so if you publish your IPv6 when hosting a game lobby, that address points not just to your router, but to the specific device you used to host the game. However, even here things aren't smooth, because of course it couldn't be simple, and you actually get several different IPv6 addresses assigned, and some of them are permanent, and others are temporary, and you're supposed to use them in different situation because security. And if you simply copy-pasted your old IPv4 code, you're probably publishing the wrong IPv6 address, which means at some point your connection might go away, etc.

It all gets pretty complex, and this is why dev ops people and network engineers are paid good money.

That is interesting and not wholly inconsistent with what others are describing as the problem. 

So... 

If you assume an independent Dev studio - publishing from a region where IPv4 is the norm and IPv6 region customers are incedental (secondary customers) would you expect to see problems reported by the IPv6 people that are not experienced by those in the primary market? 

(I have seen maps that IPv6 is only common in North America, parts of Europe, a couple of places in SA and Africa - leaving vast swaths of the planet still using IPv4 as the primary protocol) 

Is there anything that a user can do? 

---   - - -   - - - 

Related question from something you wrote:

... in the old days of gaming, players computers' were the server(host) as I understand it.  Now, studios rent (or provide) servers in various parts of different regions. 

I assume that this means that when I hit 'join battle' in the old days (Rainbow Six, 1998) that the game would link me to a host and that host was someone else's PC.  But today I assume that when I hit join battle that I'm linking up with other players on a dedicated server that might be in a node like DC, Chicago or San Francisco - and that all players PC's are just clients. 

If the Dev studio (today) writes a net code they are familiar with (IPv4) and puts the game on a server in DC, an IPv6 region - the IPv6 should accommodate legacy protocols, right?  Or does the studio need to adjust the net code for the game in a way that ports it to the different regions' protocols? 

(is any of that right?) 

So again if the problem is correctly identified... Is there anything that can be done on the client side (IPv6 client to IPv6 server running code written for IPv4) to reduce or eliminate desync and lag or other connectivity problems? 

 

 

Edit - my wife started yammering at me about 'post-Christmas-clean-up' as if I had some responsibility in her pet project.  (grin!)  Forgot to ask; in modern games... is it common to have a player's PC be the host today?

Edited December 30, 2022 by JoeSchmuckatelli

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

12 hours ago, K^2 said:

This gets complicated with games, however. Not only are they using the UDP, but you might also be the one hosting the server.

Is this normal now?  I know it used to be common (Rainbow Six, 1998) - but now?

[Nuke]

i think for the purpose of running old games over the modern internet, especially over ipv6, you are better off running a direct vpn tunnel (run it server side). you can run ipv4 inside and whatever outside. 

a game from the 90s isnt going to be able to handle ipv6. 

Edited December 31, 2022 by Nuke

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

30 minutes ago, Nuke said:

game from the 90s

I used that only as a representation of the PC host as server system that existed long ago. 

 

Sorry for the confusion. 

The game in question is a modern shooter where the devs are located in a region where IPv4 is the norm. 

[steve9728]

Those reminds me a joke years ago I saw in Chinese internet:

-You know why there have been fewer UFO sightings and claims of abduction by aliens in recent years?

-Why?

-Because the camera resolution of smartphones has been increased many times.

Edited December 31, 2022 by steve9728

[kerbiloid]

Btw. Why do the UFO deniers persistently try to convince us in absence of UFO?

Do they know something?

Idk, idk...

Edited December 31, 2022 by kerbiloid

[K^2]

18 hours ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

Is this normal now?  I know it used to be common (Rainbow Six, 1998) - but now?

Using UDP? Yeah. TCP tries to serve you packets in order, so if there was some sort of a hitch and one packet got delayed, you're not getting updates until that packet arrives. If you're playing an FPS or any other game where fast reaction is important, you're much better off skipping that packet and looking at the next one as soon as it arrived. Of course, you do have to make sure that your packets are time/frame stamped, your deltas¹ can be received out of order, and your rewind² strategy works with this. This is all pretty standard in modern multiplayer games, though.

¹ We typically avoid sending the entire state of game objects for every frame, and instead send just the data that changed from the last update. That's the "delta". You do want to send the full state every once in a while, though, in case a packet somewhere really did get lost.

² Main way to address synchronization in modern games is for the game to maintain a buffer of game states going back at least a second. If a packet with an important update arrives out of order, steps after the point it should have been received can be re-simulated.

[Terwin]

On 12/21/2022 at 9:04 AM, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

I hadn't heard of neutrons being able to escape until I saw the video on how Tokamak reactors work.  

In a Tokamak, magnetic fields will hold the hydrogen(Probably deuterium and tritium) fuel in place because it is an ion after stripping away the electron.

Because the hydrogen fuel is missing electrons, and the number of protons does not change, the waste(Helium) will also be ionized and can be held by those same magnetic fields.

But D-T fusion(the whole point of the tokamak) also produces neutrons, which do not have a charge, and as such, those neutrons will escape the magnetic confinement.

The fact that there is a plasma involved has nothing to do with the neutrons, it is just that plasma(aka magnetic) containment does not work on neutrons, so they escape while the plasma does not.

 

Note: Hydrogen has 1 proton, and no neutrons, Deuterium has 1p 1n, tritium has 1p 2n and helium(the waste) has 2p2n, so combining deuterium and tritium gives helium+1n and the neutron goes flying off.  D-D fusion should not have waste neutrons, but is also much much harder.

[kerbiloid]

Btw has anyone seen personally (or at least heard from a credible witness) a ball lightning?

Is it scientific or not?

Edited December 31, 2022 by kerbiloid

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

49 minutes ago, Terwin said:

: Hydrogen has 1 proton, and no neutrons, Deuterium has 1p 1n, tritium has 1p 2n and helium(the waste) has 2p2n, so combining deuterium and tritium gives helium+1n and the neutron goes flying off.  D-D fusion should not have waste neutrons, but is also much much harder

Hey thanks very much for this!  You've nailed the part I was missing. 

Going back to my brain-state at the time of the question (prior to the excellent descriptions of plasmas above) I'd have to say I thought a plasma was composed of the separate atomic parts - which was why I kept asking about recombination and coherence. That may have been spurred by the description of the Tokamak using escaping neutrons to heat the blanket.  Hard to imagine how you can break something down enough to free neutrons and that it can recombine as anything but hydrogen. 

Seeing that the Tokamak analogously is a chemical reaction, it now makes sense how the process works with neutrons being a waste product of the combination of different elements as opposed to a plasma which I imagined as an element broken down into the constituent parts and contained in a cloud via magnetic fields. (I recognize as I write this phrase that it's atomic rather than chemical, but because I took chemistry in college and remember that chemistry allows for the exchange of electrons and the combination of elements and waste /byproducts... it's an analogy that makes sense)

Spoiler

@SunlitZelkovahere's an example of what I wrote about in the other thread: atomic processes = magic/aliens to the uninitiated! Grin!) 

I guess this is an example of 'a little education is a dangerous thing'.  I was blind to how weak my understanding of nuclear /plasma physics was until the instant discussion! 

30 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

Btw has anyone seen personally (or at least heard from a credible witness) a ball lightning?

Is it scientific or not?

Great question! - and I'd have quipped that yeah, it's a thing... But then you want credibility... And my 'source' would be an internet article I read a while ago.  My memory hints that there might be a Scientific American piece from years ago - but memory is faulty 

Edited December 31, 2022 by JoeSchmuckatelli

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

2 hours ago, K^2 said:

Using UDP? Yeah. TCP tries to serve you packets in order, so if there was some sort of a hitch and one packet got delayed, you're not getting updates until that packet arrives. If you're playing an FPS or any other game where fast reaction is important, you're much better off skipping that packet and looking at the next one as soon as it arrived. Of course, you do have to make sure that your packets are time/frame stamped, your deltas¹ can be received out of order, and your rewind² strategy works with this. This is all pretty standard in modern multiplayer games, though.

¹ We typically avoid sending the entire state of game objects for every frame, and instead send just the data that changed from the last update. That's the "delta". You do want to send the full state every once in a while, though, in case a packet somewhere really did get lost.

² Main way to address synchronization in modern games is for the game to maintain a buffer of game states going back at least a second. If a packet with an important update arrives out of order, steps after the point it should have been received can be re-simulated.

I think I'm getting from this that there isn't much a gamer can do on their end? 

(And yeah, I'm starting to see why network engineers get paid well!) 

[Entropian]

4 hours ago, Terwin said:

D-D fusion should not have waste neutrons

While this statement is true, in reality it's inaccurate.  D-D fusion itself doesn't produce neutrons, but it produces protium and tritium, the latter of which is recycled and fused with deuterium to produce neutrons.  No D-D reactor is neutron-free.

[kerbiloid]

4 hours ago, Terwin said:

D-D fusion should not have waste neutrons, but is also much much harder.

D-D produces a lot of waste neutrons.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuterium_fusion

Also, the very first high-yield fusion test (Ivy Mike) was done using liquid deuterium as the only fusion fuel, so it's harder, but not that harder.

(Also, nothing prohibits adding some amount of tritium for ignition.)

40 minutes ago, Entropian said:

D-D fusion itself doesn't produce neutrons

It does. See the first reaction above.

(Btw, about the "Mining lunar helium-3 is so necessary for the Earth energetics." idea.
The burning deuterium right from the ocean produces by orders of magnitude more helium-3 right in situ than can be ever mined on the Moon.)

Edited December 31, 2022 by kerbiloid

[Entropian]

1 hour ago, kerbiloid said:

Ah, my bad - I completely forgot about the other reaction path.  Just for future reference as well, both reaction paths (tritium-producing and neutron-producing) occur pretty much at the same rate.

Edited December 31, 2022 by Entropian

[Jacke]

15 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

Btw has anyone seen personally (or at least heard from a credible witness) a ball lightning?

Is it scientific or not?

Appears to have some significant observations but still under research.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ball_lightning

https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=ball+lightning&atb=v101-1&iax=images&ia=images

 

[kerbiloid]

39 minutes ago, Jacke said:

Appears to have some significant observations but still under research.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ball_lightning

https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=ball+lightning&atb=v101-1&iax=images&ia=images

 

Yes, I've read this. But the idea is: "If UFO are a pseudoscience, while many physically existing people tell that they have seen them, why are the ball lightnings considered as a real phenomenon deserving the funded scientific exploration, when they look much less common, and it's even no evidence that they really exist?"

Has anyone a credible familiar person who had ever seen a fireball?

What's the difference between the UFO and the fireball phenomena that one (often seen) is blamed as a fantasy, while another one (maybe never seen) is claimed as a science?

P.S.
I don't mean the ball-looking points/spots high in the sky appearing during the strongest thunderstorms (I've seen that once myslef).
I mean those near-ground floating ball lightnings.

Edited January 1, 2023 by kerbiloid

[SunlitZelkova]

4 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

What's the difference between the UFO and the fireball phenomena that one (often seen) is blamed as a fantasy, while another one (maybe never seen) is claimed as a science?

None?

In relation to finding inspiration for science fiction (say that ten times fast), I read The Invisible College by Jacques Vallée recently. Regardless of his reliability (which I am not going to comment on as I don’t feel comfortable fully trusting someone so “onboard” with UFO research- and at the time even psychic phenomena), he makes some interesting observations in it.

In the “more reputable” reports (not someone with a blurry photo going to The National Enquirer, groups of military professionals seeing odd things) the occurrences are bizarre at times or seem unbelievable. He theorizes that even if something is worthy of research, people will be less inclined to study it if it is totally unfamiliar to them, vs. something familiar.

So a new weather phenomena is more “digestible” than a glowing oval that zigzags over the farm and disappears into thin air.

I don’t agree with what he writes, but it is an interesting thought.

Edited January 1, 2023 by SunlitZelkova

[kerbiloid]

2 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

In the “more reputable” reports (not someone with a blurry photo going to The National Enquirer, groups of military professionals seeing odd things) the occurrences are bizarre at times or seem unbelievable. He theorizes that even if something is worthy of research, people will be less inclined to study it if it is totally unfamiliar to them, vs. something familiar.

So a new weather phenomena is more “digestible” than a glowing oval that zigzags over the farm and disappears into thin air.

So, a phenomen which is reported thousands of times by very different people, watching something by groups (not by a loaded lonely stranger), sometimes filmed, is treated as a lie, a fantasy, a mass hallucination, a misinterpretation, a fake, or anything else except existing but unexplained phenomenon, at least deserving efforts to explain.

While a floating fireball which like nobody has seen, is considered as a real physical phenomenon, which deserves being studied by thousands of physicists, thinking out tens of theories (instead of real work), like the medieval scholars were calculating angels on the needle point.

Such selective blindness looks like nobody cares about the silly nerd toy like fireballs-schmireballs, but the flying things in the sky above are a painful spot causing agressive reaction and attempt to discredit anyone who can start digging deeper. The freedom of speech is such freedom.

Spoiler

 

Edited January 1, 2023 by kerbiloid

[magnemoe]

9 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

Yes, I've read this. But the idea is: "If UFO are a pseudoscience, while many physically existing people tell that they have seen them, why are the ball lightnings considered as a real phenomenon deserving the funded scientific exploration, when they look much less common, and it's even no evidence that they really exist?"

Has anyone a credible familiar person who had ever seen a fireball?

What's the difference between the UFO and the fireball phenomena that one (often seen) is blamed as a fantasy, while another one (maybe never seen) is claimed as a science?

P.S.
I don't mean the ball-looking points/spots high in the sky appearing during the strongest thunderstorms (I've seen that once myslef).
I mean those near-ground floating ball lightnings.

I think that if you get an field too  over flooded with trash reports field kind of become pseudoscience. 
UFO and ancient aliens are probably the best example. Cryptozoology  and alternative medicine is more reputable as its more linked to existing science and its easier to filter out the crap and some of it is true, we find new animals and many plants and remedies used in old cures has stuff who works. But this don't give you an dinosaur in lock nes or give crystals healing magic.  
Ball lighting also fit better here, its rare but persistent, it also has less junk data. For UFO I think that would be more like listen for alien radio in the 80-105 MHz band. 
Ancient aliens, interesting idea but then they starting implying that all the ancient gods was aliens meddling with humans they got shot down by the laser cannon on the flying shark they jumped. 

[kerbiloid]

1 minute ago, magnemoe said:

I think that if you get an field too  over flooded with trash reports field kind of become pseudoscience. 
UFO and ancient aliens are probably the best example. Cryptozoology  and alternative medicine is more reputable as its more linked to existing science and its easier to filter out the crap and some of it is true, we find new animals and many plants and remedies used in old cures has stuff who works. But this don't give you an dinosaur in lock nes or give crystals healing magic.  

Can't remember when UFO, ancient contact, or cryptobeast witnesses were positioning their words as a remedy for another one's health for money.

A person says that he was watching something. You may listen or ignore. He/she may share his words as a book for money, but again it's not a question of health and life, you buy it or ignore on your wish.

The Loch Ness dino.
(I'm aware that "loch" = "lake", but in Russian /loh/ is also a low-colloquial word for "a silly, simple, naive, usually rural person", so /loh Ness/ is a commonly understandable joke in Russian for that dino and the tourists paying for it).
A lonely big dino unlikely could survive so long in a small lake, surrounded by hungry Scots, so it was always looking like a Scottish countryside way to entertain themselves and cut money from tourists.
Unlike UFO (whatever it is), it wasn't being observed for decades in all parts of the world by (millions?) of people.

Say, there are "meteors" (what you see in the sky) and "meteorites" (what you can touch and study).
UFO are meteors. Denying the UFO is like denying meteors when you don't have a meteorite which has caused it.

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

Warning - a lot of ads.  But pertinent to the current discussion 

https://gizmodo.com/that-time-jules-verne-caused-a-ufo-scare-453662253