August 30th Episode with Karl Mamer

[Gojira2006]

Witnesses were made irrelevant up to the point where you have to wonder in what world Mamer lives in. Guess he would make a fine lawyer, but maybe that's below the belt.

Please - He'd be absolutely shredded by the opposing counsel - & certainly by the presiding judge, who would remind him that if he wants to testify, he should do so from the witness stand . . .

 

[Illuminati0n]

Thank f**k Jim was on the second half. The first half all i heard was David trying to school Karl that "UFO's" are actual things by true meaning of the term and even then, the horizon of Karl's common sense and logic ran dry and he couldn't grasp the fact. -_-'

 

[DavidRavenMoon]

Well I read it, and it was fair and factual imo.

Oh come on now... it wasn't factual. Let's take an example. He uses the logic that David says if there's smoke there must be fire, and then posts some YouTube video that shows smoke with no fire. Does that even make any sense in the context of his post? None what-so-ever.

That's like me saying because you can have smoke with no fire, and I show a YouTube link showing smoke with no fire, than I can take a bath without getting wet. The smoke video proves it. Smoke with no fire has nothing to do with people seeing UFOs.

He also is still insisting that UFO=Space aliens. David said several times that we don't know what they are, and that if it flies, and it's not recognized, it's a UFO.

He also wants to say how he pointed out the misuse of Occam's Razor. I see where he was going, but it was not even part of the conversation, and in fact if he doesn't want to introduce any more entities than needed, he needs to at least introduce the entities in question.

But his view is if someone see a UFO or entity, they must be:

1) Lying

2) Fallible human perception

3) Fallible human memory

4) Hoax

Where is number 5? That you actually saw something you can't explain?

That's not factual at all, and not scientific. That's biased on the fact that he doesn't believe it. Others here have pointed that out. It's the old Skeptics mantra "It doesn't exist because I don't believe it".

How about:

What UFO proponents are ultimately doing is proposing a new animal. Consider someone proposes there is a dinosaur in the Congo or the ivory billed woodpecker has not gone extinct. The evidence consists of eye witness accounts by very reasonable biologist. In biology, however, eyewitness accounts are not good enough. The only evidence you can offer to get your hypothesized creature into the taxonomy is bringing in a body. Of course with space aliens, it doesn't have to be a body. It could as easily be a hunk of metal from a UFO.

Well people used to report seeing an ape man in Africa in the 1800's, and it was always dismissed as a local legend... like some explorers would know more than the locals! Well, then they found the gorilla. And new animals have recently been discovered.

Now if you are looking for the ivory billed woodpecker, what are you going to do, kill one to prove you saw it? A photograph would be good evidence, and so it is true of UFOs. And there are plenty of compelling photos.

And a chunk of metal wouldn't prove a thing... just that its a chunk of metal. He's making assumptions that the isotopes would be different. It might not be, and then someone will claim it's part of something common.

Just as assumptions are made that alien life wouldn't be at all like ours, due to being in a different chemical environment, even though things like carbon are the most plentiful element in the Universe. I'd wager most of the planets with life on them are a lot like Earth. We already have planets not like earth in our Solar System, and they don't seem to have any life. Yet life seems to spring up where ever it can, as evidenced by our own planet.

With all the iron meteors we find, and water ice in comets, it seems this stuff is prevalent all over the Universe. They said water on Mars wasn't possible.... until they found it. Same with Earth's moon.

A dead alien body? Sure, that would prove something, but that might not even be possible. It's like with ghosts. You can deny they exist, but people keep seeing them anyway. You will never "capture" one, but they haven't gone away either.

Same with UFOs.

As far as him being a fundamentalist, he believes what he believes because he believes it, and not based on fact. That sounds pretty fundamentalist to me.

This guy just isn't as smart as he thinks he is, which is the case with many of these types of Skeptics. They can convince themselves that what they are saying makes sense and is right. Then they get other morons to agree with them, and the rest is history.

Anyone can post stuff on the internet. If "Gordo" is wrong, why can't "Karlo" be wrong? The answer is his ego wont allow it.

 

[Jay]

I’m about finished with the Mamer portion of this episode, here is my less than two cents worth. His way of answering questions totally reminded me of the way many of the fundamentalist preachers I grew up hearing (southern Virginia if you know who was from there) responded when they were asked questions that pushed their envelopes. The same tone of voice, the same way of responding, everything. No matter how many facts you give them, they are not going to change their minds. Science IS a religion to people like Mamer. If you can’t apply their form of scientific method to something, it doesn’t exist, or it should be ignored. “Don’t bother me with it and let me make fun of those who believe different than I do.” Is that “science”?<o></o>
I also found it laughable that he could brush off the observations of Kelly Freakin’ Johnson (not to mention Gordo) on what he reported. You mean to tell me you know more than the man who designed some of the most spectacular aircraft in history? Too bad Kelly isn’t around to have a friendly “discussion” with Mr. Mamer on aviation. How’d you like to sit in on that? <o></o>

 

[DavidRavenMoon]

That is NOT how it works. The burden of proof is on the person making the original claim. If you make an extraordinary claim, and I suggest to you a known, more prosaic alternative explanation, it is up to you to show that your explanation is the correct one. That is reality, thats how the world works and how we have all this wonderful stuff that makes our lives better thanks to science.

That's over simplifying the issue. What if I say I saw a structured metallic craft, hovering silently in the sky. Now a skeptic will come along and try and explain it as something mundane. Or say I'm lying or mistaken. Well now the skeptic is making an accusation, or a claim it was something mundane, so he does indeed have to show some proof that his explanation is valid. Because it often isn't. it's more of a nature of "oh, I don't know, but it has to be something mundane" And they spout the first thing off the top of their heads, like Venus. They put zero research or effort into the conclusion. But they just know it could not be a UFO, because UFOs are not real. That's not science, or scientific thinking.

If scientist A discovers something, and scientist B says no, it's something else. They both have to show how they came to that conclusion. But that doesn't happen in this instance. It's just one person saying the other is lying, or that everyone who sees something is either lying or mistaken.

But what is that based on? It's just as empty a claim as any other.

 

[DavidRavenMoon]

The whole idea of eyewitnesses as evidence is ludicrous anyway.

Most of everything you know was told to you by someone who experienced it, but you didn't. Like all of history.

So everything you are experiencing right now is inaccurate?

If you answer "no", how can you prove it? You trust your own observational skills, right? That's part of how we survive every day.

Are you sitting on a chair? How do you know that? Your observations could be very unreliable after all. You might be hallucinating. Or lying.

Your whole line of reasoning is ludicrous. People are not as dumb as you are suggesting. Even if observations of the mundane are not reliable, you can tell they are the mundane.

If I witness two cars hitting each other outside my window, I might have the facts mixed up as to who was at fault, but I know they were two cars involved in an accident. I didn't think it was a car and an elephant.

Or, I might not remember what the driver was wearing. I might not know what make of car it was, but it was silver. But I saw him run a red light, and it was a notable experience. You remember new experiences, that's how you learn things.

When YOU see something truly weird, you will know it. You wont be able to explain it away as mundane, because it will have too many layers of evidence to show it isn't mundane.

For example... David and his family's sighting of a HUGE cigar shaped object.

• There were multiple witnesses with very similar experiences. More details matched than did not in their stories.
  
• It made no sound. That's not possible with anything we know about. They know it wasn't a blimp... they do make sound, and they drift.
  
• It was larger than any object experienced by any of the observers.
  
• It didn't reflect light in a way people are used to seeing.
  
• It either vanished or moved off at tremendous speed (I don't remember). Once again, not like anything we have experience with.

Your brain may indeed be trying to stick it in a box, as something you have seen before. But it can't. And that's one of the first things you realize. It is precisely because your brain is so good at detecting known patterns that you have that sense that something is not right. You know you are seeing something that defies your experience. And one person's experiences are not the same as another. Like a pilot is used to seeing aircraft and clouds and such, so they would be able to tell the difference between some objects that people that don't have that experience wouldn't.

So these things are often not as simple as a light in the night sky that might be Venus. And some of us know what Venus, and the other planets look like.

 

[Dokyaro]

Mamer is as smart as a brick...a friendly reminder to all of us that the uncurious have and will always attempt to impede change...what really concerned me was the pass that Gene and Dave gave to Delittoso over the finger story...STOP...a human finger? Where is the police report...you mean to say that you, Jim, an avowed pacifist did not immediately inform the authorities? Eeks...a fresh human finger at your gate...does anyone else smell fish?

 

[AmSci]

My name is Brian Thompson, and I'm the editor of AmateurScientist.org, where Karl Mamer posts. I'm afraid the length of this thread prevents me from responding to everyone individually, but here are a collection of thoughts to consider:

1. Skeptics don't have a vested interest in debunking claims about UFOs. Anyone who's ever associated with skeptics or been to a skeptics' conference like The Amazing Meeting can tell you the atmosphere is not unlike a comic book or sci-fi convention. Lots of slightly portly gentlemen in nerdy t-shirts. The occasional fanny pack. Plenty of Star Trek talk. In other words, most of us are nerds. We'd love to know aliens are visiting the earth or that strange intelligences are creating lights in the sky. If for no other reason, we'd love for these things to be true because that would be cool.

I used to be a believer myself, but I eventually grew frustrated with the lack of any compelling evidence to support anything other than a mundane explanation for these experiences. Too many photos, government documents, and alien implants turned out to collapse under scrutiny. Too many eyewitness stories changed and inflated over time. Too many scientific studies discredited regression hypnosis, which is much of the foundation for the abduction phenomenon. In short, too much disappointment.

2. No one is saying all UFO experiences have a mundane explanation. Some can't be explained at all. But this isn't evidence for an extraterrestrial, extradimensional, or otherwise extraordinary explanation. This is simply because there isn't enough evidence to make any conclusion at all. If someone says he saw a UFO and has no pictures or documentation, he's not necessarily lying. But that kind of claim isn't falsifiable, so it's useless when debating the topic.

3. There's been some talk of the value of eyewitness testimony in science as opposed to courts. As someone familiar with both the legal system and the scientific method, I don't think there's much of a difference in how the two approach personal testimony. Neither one of them lends it much credence without severe scrutiny. A scientific paper may cite more sources than a courtroom testimony, but it's still not taken at face value. It has to pass a peer review process, and even after it's published, other scientists try to either tear the results apart or replicate them in the lab. Scientists actually take a lot of pleasure in proving each other wrong. Maybe it's sadism, but it's also the only way useful information rises to the top.

The courtroom works the same way. This is why witnesses are cross-examined. The court doesn't allow any testimony to go unquestioned for the same reason scientists don't accept every academic paper upon first publication. The jury may not use the best critical thinking in choosing whether or not to believe a witness, but that's beside the issue. Not everyone who reads a scientific paper is going to be able to correctly determine if its results were accurate or not. The fact is that neither discipline allows assertion to pass for evidence.

4. Some of you have blasted Karl for not being familiar enough with the three UFO cases raised by the hosts of this show. This is a specious argument. For one thing, Karl wasn't told which cases would be discussed beforehand. For another, while some cases may be old hat to people deep into ufology, that's not the case for everyone else. As a former geek for all things "paranormal", I'm probably more familiar than most laypeople with UFO lore. I know a lot about cattle mutilations, Whitley Strieber, Gordon Cooper, the alien pancake incident (one of my favorites), and others, but there are thousands upon thousands of individual cases and an entire subculture built around them. No one can be up on all of them.

Regardless, Karl subsequently researched these cases and wrote about them on my site. I'm a little disturbed to see so few refutations of the points he raised as to how these cases were misrepresented to him and to how the evidence for them doesn't add up. Instead of laying into Karl for not being as engrossed in ufology as you, why not address his arguments since he's satisfied your demands for knowledge?

5. Extraordinary claims do indeed require extraordinary evidence. If a friend told me he went to the grocery store and ran into an old flame, I wouldn't demand proof of this. It's something that's known to happen a lot, though it may not be a typical situation. But if he told me he went to the grocery store and saw a metal craft zipping soundlessly down the cereal aisle, I'd be right to question him further. This isn't the same as calling someone a liar or insisting that what they thought they saw is a trick of the mind. It's simply an acknowledgment of the fact that people are documented to lie or be fooled by the limits of their own perception all the time, while seeing UFOs is a much less common occurrence. There is no counter-claim to be proved by the skeptic. It's just a refusal to accept the extraordinary before the mundane is ruled out. It's an adherence to statistical probability.

6. Finally, we come to the most damning question of all in the minds of skeptics. Where is all the evidence? There have been hundreds of thousands of UFO reports throughout history. Millions, even. And if you follow the Jacques Vallee school and lump in accounts of fairies, spirits, or sprites, you might be looking at claims in the billions. For the sake of argument, let's be conservative and say there are 5 million UFO reports out there. If only 1% of them had solid, irrefutable evidence to back them up, there would be 50,000 pieces of such evidence in the public record. While it may seem to be an argument in favor of the non-mundane nature of UFOs that there are so many accounts, the opposite is true if the numbers of those accounts keeps growing while the pool of reliable evidence remains so paltry.

Some previous posters have referenced the existence of solid photographs or other types of evidence. Where are they? If the cases presented to Karl on The Paracast are some of the best, why are they so easy to pick apart? Shouldn't UFO believers in particular be able to list the truly compelling cases off the tops of their heads? And shouldn't the evidence for them be widely available and agreed upon?

Perhaps there isn't any such evidence because the forces responsible for UFOs are too advanced or ethereal to leave traces of themselves behind. That's a possibility, but, once again, it's an unverifiable claim. And as such, it's a useless claim upon which to base a factual argument.

 

[MrChud]

Hi AmSci, I found myself agreeing with most of your post, however I am a bit of a woo-woo when it come to ufo's, in as much as I hold out high hope for there to be an exotic source for some of them. I would be interested on your take of the findings of Ted Philips, have you heard about some of his cases, and what are your thoughts?

http://www.ufophysical.com/ He claims to have data on over 3000 reports, I dont know if they are all on his site though.

 

[conor]

This guy diminishes human experience.

 

[Gojira2006]

My name is Brian Thompson, and I'm the editor of AmateurScientist.org, where Karl Mamer posts. I'm afraid the length of this thread prevents me from responding to everyone individually, but here are a collection of thoughts to consider . . .

I'm personally glad that you took the time to post . . . I was going to respond to your statements point-by-point, but you haven't added anything new to the discussion that isn't a rehashing of what Karl Mamer & other skeptics have been saying all along, so I felt anything other than thanking you for taking the time would be pointless - But, in reconsidering, I must say, I'm not a "believer" in UFOs, as the question is frequently posed of guests on the less than intellectually demanding C2C show, but I do accept the notion of extreme possibilities, which includes the idea that we are being visited, as I haven't made up my mind about the Universe, yet . . .

 

[DrLogic]

Re editor's note: I think the problem with yet another rebuttal is that in order to define oneself as a skeptic you are having to marginalize everyone who disagrees with as 'believers', 'ones who propose an ETH'.

It is patronising to say the least. If you have such courage in your convictions then by all means argue you case against those of us who have the humility to say 'maybe we just don't know everything'.

By continuing this attack on only fundamentalist believers, then tarring all dissenters with that same brush, one is side stepping an intellectually valid discussion and in turn revealing the weakness of ones argument.

 

[Decker]

Welcome to our newest poster AmSci. In my mind, and over the years I've stated it time and again, the question is not "are UFOs real?" That is disingenuous. Of course they are real, when someone looks up and sees something that they can not identify, that IS a UFO. The question should be, "are any UFOs, flying apparently artificial objects, somebody else's technology?" And that is somebody else .. not from around here.

Over the years, it is apparent (at least to me) that some group or agency within the US government, holds the reins of secrecy over this "cosmic top secret" event. As a former law enforcement officer and detective, when I decided to involve myself it was with the intention that I would treat each case and event exactly the same way I treated any criminal investigation I was involved in. And over the years AmSci I broke a number of very large cases involved with these anomalous events. The cases I was really interested in were involved with either the military or NASA events. These cases were the most interesting with the best observers. And lest you begin by telling me that you can't trust any witness report ... that is BS. Years of investigations and interviewing hundreds of people both as a criminal investigator and then as a UFO investigator I am very aware of the potential pitfalls when dealing with witnesses.

At anyrate I find it refreshing that you are willing to drop by, post and hopefully have fruitful discussions here. Now, tell me this ... just what would it take for you to acknowledge that there is "something" to this subject deserving of an honest scientific inquiry, minus the ... what was it that Mamer said? Minus the "woo-woo" factor?

Don Ecker aka Decker

 

[PhantomAce]

My name is Brian Thompson, and I'm the editor of AmateurScientist.org, where Karl Mamer posts. I'm afraid the length of this thread prevents me from responding to everyone individually, but here are a collection of thoughts to consider:

1. Skeptics don't have a vested interest in debunking claims about UFOs. Anyone who's ever associated with skeptics or been to a skeptics' conference like The Amazing Meeting can tell you the atmosphere is not unlike a comic book or sci-fi convention. Lots of slightly portly gentlemen in nerdy t-shirts. The occasional fanny pack. Plenty of Star Trek talk. In other words, most of us are nerds. We'd love to know aliens are visiting the earth or that strange intelligences are creating lights in the sky. If for no other reason, we'd love for these things to be true because that would be cool.

Aliens?

I used to be a believer myself, but I eventually grew frustrated with the lack of any compelling evidence to support anything other than a mundane explanation for these experiences. Too many photos, government documents, and alien implants turned out to collapse under scrutiny. Too many eyewitness stories changed and inflated over time. Too many scientific studies discredited regression hypnosis, which is much of the foundation for the abduction phenomenon. In short, too much disappointment.

Scrutiny? Which ones specifically or is the "broad brush" being used again?

2. No one is saying all UFO experiences have a mundane explanation. Some can't be explained at all. But this isn't evidence for an extraterrestrial, extradimensional, or otherwise extraordinary explanation. This is simply because there isn't enough evidence to make any conclusion at all. If someone says he saw a UFO and has no pictures or documentation, he's not necessarily lying. But that kind of claim isn't falsifiable, so it's useless when debating the topic.

I agree. Well put.

3. There's been some talk of the value of eyewitness testimony in science as opposed to courts. As someone familiar with both the legal system and the scientific method, I don't think there's much of a difference in how the two approach personal testimony. Neither one of them lends it much credence without severe scrutiny. A scientific paper may cite more sources than a courtroom testimony, but it's still not taken at face value. It has to pass a peer review process, and even after it's published, other scientists try to either tear the results apart or replicate them in the lab. Scientists actually take a lot of pleasure in proving each other wrong. Maybe it's sadism, but it's also the only way useful information rises to the top.

The courtroom works the same way. This is why witnesses are cross-examined. The court doesn't allow any testimony to go unquestioned for the same reason scientists don't accept every academic paper upon first publication. The jury may not use the best critical thinking in choosing whether or not to believe a witness, but that's beside the issue. Not everyone who reads a scientific paper is going to be able to correctly determine if its results were accurate or not. The fact is that neither discipline allows assertion to pass for evidence.

Yes. But mainstream science is it's own enemy at times. Peer review..okay. I often wonder if Polio was ravaging kids in our time would a cure be found in this era of politicos,special interests and big pharma.

4. Some of you have blasted Karl for not being familiar enough with the three UFO cases raised by the hosts of this show. This is a specious argument. For one thing, Karl wasn't told which cases would be discussed beforehand. For another, while some cases may be old hat to people deep into ufology, that's not the case for everyone else. As a former geek for all things "paranormal", I'm probably more familiar than most laypeople with UFO lore. I know a lot about cattle mutilations, Whitley Strieber, Gordon Cooper, the alien pancake incident (one of my favorites), and others, but there are thousands upon thousands of individual cases and an entire subculture built around them. No one can be up on all of them.

Regardless, Karl subsequently researched these cases and wrote about them on my site. I'm a little disturbed to see so few refutations of the points he raised as to how these cases were misrepresented to him and to how the evidence for them doesn't add up. Instead of laying into Karl for not being as engrossed in ufology as you, why not address his arguments since he's satisfied your demands for knowledge?

Actually I think Karl was a little out of his league,nice guy but.
He did well with the "pat" answers. I'll refer to your bullet point number one when it comes to Karl.

5. Extraordinary claims do indeed require extraordinary evidence. If a friend told me he went to the grocery store and ran into an old flame, I wouldn't demand proof of this. It's something that's known to happen a lot, though it may not be a typical situation. But if he told me he went to the grocery store and saw a metal craft zipping soundlessly down the cereal aisle, I'd be right to question him further. This isn't the same as calling someone a liar or insisting that what they thought they saw is a trick of the mind. It's simply an acknowledgment of the fact that people are documented to lie or be fooled by the limits of their own perception all the time, while seeing UFOs is a much less common occurrence. There is no counter-claim to be proved by the skeptic. It's just a refusal to accept the extraordinary before the mundane is ruled out. It's an adherence to statistical probability.

I agree. However...a hypothetical. What if instead of a friend telling you of metal craft it was a small child of 5 or less with little no ufo social contamination or someone your dearly trusted like a Grandparent? You refuse the extraordinary cause your mind his made up that it cannot exist. Fine. But take it for what's reported a "metal craft" or "object". Don't automatically associate it to aliens,etc. There is no proof. One day "some" of you guys will have a "ah ah" moment. I know it..you will.

6. Finally, we come to the most damning question of all in the minds of skeptics. Where is all the evidence? There have been hundreds of thousands of UFO reports throughout history. Millions, even. And if you follow the Jacques Vallee school and lump in accounts of fairies, spirits, or sprites, you might be looking at claims in the billions. For the sake of argument, let's be conservative and say there are 5 million UFO reports out there. If only 1% of them had solid, irrefutable evidence to back them up, there would be 50,000 pieces of such evidence in the public record. While it may seem to be an argument in favor of the non-mundane nature of UFOs that there are so many accounts, the opposite is true if the numbers of those accounts keeps growing while the pool of reliable evidence remains so paltry.

Some previous posters have referenced the existence of solid photographs or other types of evidence. Where are they? If the cases presented to Karl on The Paracast are some of the best, why are they so easy to pick apart? Shouldn't UFO believers in particular be able to list the truly compelling cases off the tops of their heads? And shouldn't the evidence for them be widely available and agreed upon?

Perhaps there isn't any such evidence because the forces responsible for UFOs are too advanced or ethereal to leave traces of themselves behind. That's a possibility, but, once again, it's an unverifiable claim. And as such, it's a useless claim upon which to base a factual argument.

Your last paragraph here is where the line is drawn usually.Yes the forces responsible may in fact be well advanced and do not leave evidence we can detect.

however....

"its and unverifiable claim"? What so we just give up? Attend Star Trek cons?

Actually the whole thing can be broken down to meaning behind my sig. DB puts it perfectly."I want to know and understand".

I can clearly understand your brand of skepticism. It's wrought with assumptions and genreralities which can be tailor fit to any topic. The Easy Button. But what is it you learn? Perhap very little do to the little box you paint yourself into cause of your belief system. Good Luck and Next Gen ruled them all....

 

[AmSci]

@MrChud

Never heard of Ted Philips, so I can't speak to his claims. With over 3,000, it might take a while to sift through them all. Which do you think are his most compelling?

@conor

On the contrary. I think shining a light of reason and reality enhances human experience.

@Gojira2006

I, too, accept the possibility that UFOs might have an extraordinary explanation. I've just never seen any compelling evidence to make me think that's the case.

@DrLogic

In opposing skeptics' generalizations, you're making a generalization about skeptics. None of us "believe we know everything". However, we also don't believe we know nothing. There's a middle ground.

@Decker

I'm less interested in hearing you tell about all the compelling evidence you've uncovered than in seeing that evidence for myself. After decades of investigation, why haven't people in your field been able to move ufology inward from the fringes? If there's so much compelling evidence, you'd think this would be a natural progression.

Also, no one has questioned the reality of UFO sightings, only what those sightings mean. As has been previously noted by other posters in this thread, your insinuation otherwise shows a terrible lack of observational skills, despite your repeated assertions about your credentials.

@PhantomAce

To use the most famous example, the Roswell myth falls apart upon casual examination. I've written about this in one of my columns. It's a perfect storm of sloppy reporting and outright fabrication. Same goes for the Phoenix Lights, crop circles, etc., etc. Can you give an example of a case you think is rock solid?

The polio vaccine is an excellent example of why the scientific method is the best and most effective method of making technological advancements. Jonas Salk tested his vaccine for three years before announcing it to the public. The oral vaccine was tested even longer. And all of this was due in large part to funding provided by "big pharma" companies like Lederle Laboratories.

My "uncontaminated" 2 year-old nephew told me pirates come out of his LEGO castle and play with his toys. Call me a cynic, but I didn't take this at face value.

Maybe some day there will be an undeniably extraordinary UFO event. Personally, I don't have the patience to keep looking, though I'd welcome any new evidence. Unverifiable claims, however, are useless to investigate due to their very nature.

 

[AmSci]

Anyway, I'm done here. I stopped by because there was a lot of discussion about an article on my site, but I don't have an interest in the kind of circular arguments that are going on in this thread. If anyone to whom I've asked a direct question wants to respond, I can be reached at [email protected].

 

[cottonzway]

AmSci,

Welcome to the forums.

I only wish the gentleman whom you are speaking for would have himself came here to speak for himself. I am not at all suggesting he "asked" you do that or anything, but if he was at all aware of this and choose not to speak up for himself while knowing you are doing so it is kind of weak in general. I'm a loud, aggresive, bombastic red-blooded man though and not everyone is that way.

I created the orginal post here because I was pretty much disgusted with Karl's manner in which is spoke about Gordon Cooper. It was disrespectful. Whatever someone thinks about Gordon Cooper's stories about UFOs he should get more respect as a human being then Karl gave to him. Calling him "Gordo" like some child is immature. Saying "I'm not saying he was lying" is ignorant. Gordon Cooper added a lot to society and history in genreal. Being spoken about in the manner Karl spoke about him was highly disrespectful.

I had a hard time taking Karl seriously for something I heard him say in two episodes on his own website that has NOTHING to do with the paranomal at all. His two shows on the Federal Reserve said to me pretty clear he thinks in the manner to "debunk" as it is some hobby rather then think in any rational manner. To suggest the Federal Reserve is anything other then a private, for profit business and not a US government agency when spending time looking up basic facts is intellectually lazy. I can't take someone serious at that point because they have made up their mind that they will reject issues based on fundamentalist views of simply rejecting to reject as it brings someone joy to do so.

Thanks for joining here and hopefully you stick around.

 

[cottonzway]

Right as I post "I hope you stay around" you say you are not. Meh. Oh well.

 

[MrChud]

Calling him "Gordo" like some child is immature

He was always known as "Gordo", and it was not derogatory at all.

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/space/features/remembering_gordo.html

 

[cottonzway]

He was always known as "Gordo", and it was not derogatory at all.

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/space/features/remembering_gordo.html

You can tell the difference in tone right? He called him that as a joke, half laughing.