Search results

Surely not.:p That doesn't sound like you at all. Re forum silence : I don't think the new listeners are coming to the forums like the old podcast junkies used to. Also, Vallee is actually a bit dull in conversation, to be fair.

Father, son, holy spirit and Elvis?:p

But I've gone on there and am replaying it now. I don't get it.

Magnets. How do they work?:p

So, what would be the empirical (field) research that would verify (or falsify) the statements he made about portals? (genuine question)

I understand - I also wasn't trying to be an asshole. Without disparaging Phil's academic career, it is worth pointing out that a Masters is not a 'higher' degree - it's really regarded as a bachelors level degree with a more specialised focus - it is not an academic imprimatur of...

Can I just, for the record, state that I do have a PhD but since it's not in ufology it's all a bit moot, anyway. Can I add that the relevance of his theoretical claims is that if he is a bullshit artist with no rigour in relation to these armchair claims which I can check, how can I rely on...

Well Kevin Daly criticised his theoretical physics. You repond to this saying it's easy to criticise if you haven't put the leg-work in that he has. I ask what 'leg work' he has put in in relation to the claims of theoretical physics currently under discussion. You say I am putting words in...

So what 'foot-work' has he done into studying portals?:confused:

In brief : I sympathised with Walter's views in the discussion on the forum about the uses and abuses of scientific method but the manner in which he 'addressed' the debate on the show made him come across as simply intolerant of disagreement and rational inquiry.

You missed at least two other positions a. they make snidey claims about Emma's mental health b. they defend Jacobs at all costs (call the case 'bullshit' - which is hardly 'holding off') in the face of the currently available evidence. :)

I enjoyed the elision from Paul's "Hopkins and especially Jacobs absolutely claim to have the answers" to Keiko's "I don’t think either Hopkins or Jacobs think they have all the answers":).

I was not aware of that : can you point me to these diagnoses.:)

Yes. I think her evidence is, at least prima facie, tantamount to 'a case to be answered' other than simply by way of character assassination and smear.

The problem, of course, is that there is serious evidence out there to suggest that this does not stand as a description of the practice and circumstances of Dr Jacobs.

Funnily enough, I found him all the things you mention and always thought "ah but I'd miss him" but I don't. Personally, I think the guest presenters are a breath of fresh air and show just how tired (and, sorry, but yes, tiresome) DB had become.

Oh, yes, of course - I wasn't implying otherwise. I certainly wasn't implying anyone here is a knobhead - I was just pointing out that not banning him for making the op of this thread (ie. not being a knobhead) was hardly indicative of amazing tolerance. Oh Lord please don't let me be...

Gene seems alright and this thread's op is a bit daft but one would have to be a right knobhead to ban him for making it, so I would hardly say that 'amazing tolerance' is demonstrated thereby.

lol does that mean that you accept that other times he acts like a childish fool?:D

I did : but, to be fair, that can often mean a sulk for no reason:D Do you mean to imply that this particular one was justified? Fair nuff, like, just checkin';)