Search results

Thanks for your opinion on what you think constitutes being a sceptic. I had thought I agreed with many of the opinions you espoused but i find i actually agree with few.

Now back to our regular programming...........I think that the word skeptic/sceptic invokes different feelings or definitions in different people. Absolutely nothing wrong with that. I may disagree with stphrz on the neutrality section but i agree with his assessment on most other things. I even...

Well don't let inflamatory stop you. Well i am sorry that you thought that. Perhaps i should clarify. I was referring to my perceived length of it rather than it's length due to any lying. You may invoke all sorts of opinions but i don't consider you to be a liar. Just a bit wooden and...

Now, now Lance let's be fair. Not everyone who questions the evidence is a debunker. Perhaps only you. Heh heh. "Lance Through the Looking Glass"-A debunker's fairy tale. Although it sounds more like a bad porno. Maybe only at your house. But that's just the condescending reply i had expected...

Being aware of the precepts and actively practicing them are two different things in your case it seems. And yes i suppose "debunker" doesn't fit the modern skeptical movement but i'm sure that your man enough to wear that tag with some sort of pride. Much like your answer to my question, i...

stphrz. You made the statement. You should have to explain that same statement if quizzed on it. It seems you weren't clear enough with your initial statement. You're welcome to your view on neutrality and how it applies to being a sceptic, i suppose. As Mike was saying.... I can't speak for...

Well, any phenomenon you take a position on. It doesn't matter which. Why wouldn't you give consideration to the many sides? Isn't that what a true sceptic does, considers all evidence? I don't think doubt excludes neutrality. I can't say for a fact that beings from zeta reticulii do not...

Agreed. Although in reality a true sceptic would be neutral. I think that the word is often misused. Maybe we could say "debunker or true believer". One being polar opposite to the other in mindset. ---------- Post added at 04:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:35 PM ---------- If you...

Then don't get all bent out of shape when others disagree with your assessment of the video. I have looked at your vid and i simply don't come to the same conclusion as you, sorry. C'est la difference!!! The vid may go some way towards explaining what the vision presented may or may not be but...

Yes they could have been wrong. But they also COULD have been right! Still nothing definitive! The point is, even if it is 40-50 witnesses that makes it a significant sighting. You and Mr Analogy may want to ignore and minimalize them, i do not. Yes but you can't discount the visiting craft...

It sure does if you want to project your own opinion onto THIS case i suppose. If it was one or two people you may have a case. But for thousands to have seen the lights over a 300 mile track makes this less likely that ALL of them are wrong. It's okay if you want to disregard their reports...

I'm not sore i no wot you meen their Angleo!:) I just don't find Eddie's video to be as definitive as he does. Pretty simple really. The earlier video (@ the 8-8.30pm timeslot) and which Eddie is presenting, shows lights in the sky,nothing more. What these lights are are pure conjecture. They...

If Oswald had the inferior and highly inaccurate model 91/24 then his ability to do the shots accurately is put into question. Add the fact that it seems that he was at the lowest end of the marksman scale and you have an unlikely mix.

If Ron is right we have a person (Oswald) who was a sub par marksman with an inaccurate rifle.

Zen Master. I just do want to see any more clumsy attempts at analogies, thanks:) Who are you, the "master" and i'm "grasshopper?" I'd try to snatch the pebble from your hand but there is already some thing else there that i don't wish to grab if it's all the same:) Seriously mate, get over...

And that's the problem isn't it? I think that it is possible that they saw what they say they saw. You cannot handle the fact that they maybe right. Of course eyewitness testimony is not infallable. Again trying to put words in my mouth. And don't bother with any more of the "you're really...

I don't give a rats tossbag what you think. You're entitled to your opinion but i could give a fuck. Your video doesn't impress me one bit. So what if the lights flipping move. Does that disprove what Mike Fortson saw. The video itself does not look anything like what he or many of the other...

I care, head. I'm not dismissing these testimonies just because you get all hard over a video explanation. If that's all you are basing your debunking on then good luck to you. If these were aircraft lights then where are the radar data that backs that up?

It still doesn't account for the multilple witness sightings. This is a description from Mike Fortson (kindly supplied by Frank Warren) In regards to altitude Fortson writes: This was a report by Tim Ley (another witness) Thanks to Frank warren for these quotes.

Yeah. Debunking everything with the "flares" explanation has become the "swamp gas" debunking tool of the new millenium.