• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Micah Hanks, November 2, 2014

Forums New posts
regarding the "hard core skeptic" - it's rather frustrating when a so called skeptic cherry picks, or refuses to acknowledge those cases with multiple witness, radar, ground traces, etc. It's easier for the debunker to point out the obvious hoaxes, frauds, or even those incidents that leave one witness without any data to back up- then use these particular cases to demonstrate why there is nothing unexplainable. As G Mackay mentions, the other side of the fence has the true blue believer, convinced ET roams our backyards each night at 3:00 am (eastern time, of course)
As also mentioned, these two camps are entertaining and fun. It's a rare thing to find a "hard core skeptic" who will admit to being "on the fence" concerning any one particular case.
 
To be honest though guys, my question also got a little misconstrued but by no fault of Goggs.


During the past year Loren Coleman, on his blog Twilight Language. has been running a series of posts about the prevalence of the Trident symbol, whether it be associated with Neptune or Satan in various news events throughout the past year going back to the first Malaysian airliners disaster, to the Ukrainian situation to the attack last month on the Canadian Parliament and in more than a few stories in between.

For his part, on one blog entry. Loren did invite a group of other fortean bloggers and podcasters...including Micah and another forum friend RPJ... to comment on the trident symbol in folklore and mythology. I did notice this and it was for that reason I asked for Micah's opinion but it was directed at the large number of connections that Loren seem to believe he found throughout the series of events in his other posts. Sorry I wasn't clearer.
 
Stagger Lee said:
regarding the "hard core skeptic" - it's rather frustrating when a so called skeptic cherry picks, or refuses to acknowledge those cases with multiple witness, radar, ground traces, etc. It's easier for the debunker to point out the obvious hoaxes, frauds, or even those incidents that leave one witness without any data to back up- then use these particular cases to demonstrate why there is nothing unexplainable. As G Mackay mentions, the other side of the fence has the true blue believer, convinced ET roams our backyards each night at 3:00 am (eastern time, of course)
As also mentioned, these two camps are entertaining and fun. It's a rare thing to find a "hard core skeptic" who will admit to being "on the fence" concerning any one particular case.
Click to expand...

@Stagger Lee - Do you remember our one-time resident forum skeptic, Lance Moody? Well, he illustrated the behaviour of the debunking skeptics you described and he did it perfectly!

He spent months trying to explain the sighting just off the California coast by some engineers from Lockheed, maybe even the SkunkWorks itself. His explanation centred around an evaporating cloud, giving the appearance of a UFO heading away from the observers. Lance does deserve credit for actually doing work instead of just giving proclamations, like so many others. Now, I happen to think his explanation was verging on silly, especially with the calibre of witnesses, but never mind that.

What really bothered me was that Lance chose that case to spend many hours on. The case only had eyewitnesses. No radar or photos etc. My point is that there are far 'better' cases out there, cases that are much harder to debunk. Do the skeptics try to explain those? Not if they can help it!

I almost badgered Lance for months and months asking for his opinion on 5 or so excellent cases. Despite Lance visiting the forum very frequently over an extended period of time, he never once responded to my request, never mind tackle it. I think he was nervous of even trying because some of these cases have multiple credible witnesses and multiple radar tracks, It really bugs me when the paid-up debunking brigade say bilge like 'UFOs are just cases of mistaken identity....' etc.

I'd have much more respect for the debunkers if they practised their trade on the best cases, not the easiest to dismiss. Despite me really having a strong dislike of Phillip Klass, I must give him credit for actually attempting to explain difficult cases. Often very badly but at least he tried.
 
Back
Top