Search results

He spars online with critics all the time. I'm not his manager. It's not like he's singling you out. Get your boy Stanford ready to go. I'm waiting . . . . He'll chicken out or hang up within 10 minutes.

I'll happily debate anyone on what I've turned up . . . Socorro, the titanium industry, the White House UFO meeting in 52. Tony's work on nitinol and its' development and his follow up with Roswell witnesses has been great. He's also turned up new material on a great case in Wanaque, NJ and...

I like your show and I like your forum. It just seems whenever I post here it becomes about Socorro. I'm the one who found the Colgate/Pauling correspondence and have offered to debate Stanford and anyone else who wants to argue that Socorro was an ET case. Stanford is going to mop the floor...

Zamora never said he saw any kind of landing gear retract from or back into the balloon. He never said he saw a vehicle land. Never said he saw anyone get into or out of the vehicle.. That's your projection. He doesn't want to do podcast interviews. He's never done anybody's as far as I know...

OK. "It looks like a balloon." -Lonnie Zamora, April 24, 1964

Yeah sure. I think Tony is THE top UFO researcher out there right now. The guy consistently turns up new material in a field that has really been picked over. Still, there are some things that have gone unnoticed over the years and there's more there. I like to think I've found some of it over...

Rich writes he's a "believer in both categories." To be properly clear on what that means, you do need to see the Andrews letter as well. I'm not defending the Hangar 1 show but Printy does the same sloppy things to suit his agenda.

Printy never fails to ignore the obvious. Andrews is pretty clear when he writes, "I believe there are lots of UFO's. I am also tending to "believe" they are of 2 categories: A: manmade UFOs B. extraterrestrial UFOs." Rich responds: "Yes, I'm a believer in both categories." How you can...

"Why does the AHA cling to recommendations that fly in the face of scientific evidence? What I discovered was both eye-opening and disturbing. The AHA not only ignored all the other risk factors for heart disease, but it appointed someone with ties to Big Food and bizarre scientific beliefs to...

If the Koch Brothers funded support for the Heliocentric Theory of Copernicus would the sun still revolve around the Earth?

Firstly, let me say we should be moving to future energies as fast as possible because fossil fuels are a finite resource. Having said that, the pro-AGW argument is about correlation equaling causation and the correlation is breaking down. The predictions, which is a big part of any scientific...

I posted a link to the full Jones/BBC interview above. The scientists who have based their reps on the AGW theory are not going to suddenly reverse, but the honest ones are walking back some of the ridiculous alarmist claims being made. As James Lovelock said, in another article I posted a link...

B - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming Yes, but only just. BBC News - Q&A: Professor Phil Jones “The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books – mine...

The claims about who's for/against AGW and why are irrelevant. The facts of the matter are the facts of the matter. When you have a theory that you must continually bend and shift and twist to make it work, you don't have a very good theory.

I think they're serious with this bit of absurdest fear porn: "Looking at the past, we see a strong relationship between temperature and crime," says study author Matthew Ranson, an economist with the policy consulting firm Abt Associates. "We think that is likely to continue in the future."...

They do, anthropomorphic climate change or AGW. It's a mouthful though. I am a skeptic, don't mind saying so. Here's some science. Global warming not uniform around the globe: Some areas were recently cooling -- ScienceDaily

They pumped up Phil Schneider. Geez, that's not good.

Incoming spam!

I'm subscribed to this one so let it ride.