Like..What is this $&!@

[Decker]

So, there I am ... trolling the web .. looking for possible guests when I saw it!

Turning my head into an expulsion cavity De Void - Sarasota Herald-Tribune - Sarasota, FL - Archive Like, I was up on Billy Cox's DeVoid blog site .. you know, just kind of cruising in neutral when it jumped out at me ...

"Thanks for demonstrating clearly how richly deserved the laughter that greets this topic really is.
Needless to say, all of the photos are eminently laughable.
I love how whenever something is out of focus, she describes it as partially materialized. If this is true then my parents often seem to take images of my kids while they are partially materialized!

Note how Talbot vouches for the authenticity of the photos despite the fact that she was not present when they were taken. Now that’s science!

As to crop circles, the “compelling aspects” you so blithely present as fact are actually unproven and unaccepted by non-insane people. There are no alterations of the plants themselves–despite the representations made by nuts like Nancy Talbot. Apparently they only show up if your heart is pure and you really really want them to be there.

One of the best demonstrations of crop circle “science” is when the leading light of crop circle “research,” Colin Andrews, was filmed walking through a circle sagely commenting on all the reasons that this circle was a REAL one, citing all the usual unproven and completely subjective claptrap that circlers employ.

He was rather quieter after viewing a video tape of regular people creating that very circle.

But there is obviously still a crazy core of believers who will not be silenced, not by laughter, not by derision, and sure as hell not by reason.

Lance

by Lance Moody"

Hmm .. Lance Moody. Well I'll be danged .. that name kind of seemed somewhat familar. Lance Moody. Where had I seen that name before ?? Hmmmm.

Then when I dispelled my Alzheimer's I seemed to recall I might have seen the name somewhere on The Paracast. Damn ... let me look around.

OH! SHIT YEA! Now I remembered ...... wasn't he the guy that called Walter Bosley a liar? I seemed to recall (course now that I am getting so damned old ... sometimes it is hard to remember!) asking Lance Moody for some kind of proof that Walter Bosley lied.

Then I seemed to recall (somewhere in the dim recesses of my dwindling mind) Lance Moody coming out with another Zinger aimed at Chris O'Brien .... "everything Christopher O'Brien has to say, his methods, and his conclusions," [are] "rather undisciplined and lazy" and it finally hit me! Lance Moody is vying for Phil Klass's job! By God! Ad Hominem attacks are the answer. Lance Moody must of watched Klass, Oberg, Menzel, Peebles, Sheaffer and others for years! Yea! That's it!

Hey Lance Moody ... really nice fracken job there Buddy! Keep it up! Damn, I do love those well thought out and reasoned responses there Bucko!

There’s just so many paranormal claims and sadly so little of me!

Lance

by Lance Moody

:question:

 

[mechanicalbug]

Glad you enjoy my posts, Don!

I note that you overlook the example of the idiocy of the crop circle supporters, the well-documented comeuppance of Colin Andrews that I cited.

Are you saying that you think there is something (other than obvious fraud) to the ridiculous photos Talbott published?

I encourage everyone to take a look and see what you think.

Lance

 

[Decker]

Glad you enjoy my posts, Don!

I note that you overlook the example of the idiocy of the crop circle supporters, the well-documented comeuppance of Colin Andrews that I cited.

Are you saying that you think there is something (other than obvious fraud) to the ridiculous photos Talbott published?

I encourage everyone to take a look and see what you think.

Lance

Don't change the subject Lance. We are not talking about photographs ... I was talking about Ad Hominem attacks with an apparent unwillingness to furnish proof that somebody is lying or crazy or uses lazy means. And I have been around for a bit and have seen a whole lot over the many years. Why do you think that Curtis Peebles, Phil Klass, Jim Oberg, Bob Sheaffer and many others in the skeptical community found it rather unpleasant to debate me? Hmmmmmmm?? Could it be that I refuse to allow myself to be sidetracked?

Decker

 

[Decker]

The photographs themselves were good evidence of this.

Lance

Huh??? I see you are avoiding my main point regarding ....... Ad Hominem ATTACKS >>>>>>>

 

[Decker]

Saying that someone who claims that those ridiculous photos are real is nutty is simply stating a fact. You know, just like when you call Phil Klass a SOB.

Lance

Okay Lance, you want to talk about pictures Okay ... for just a second we will talk about freaken pictures! I think most crop circle stuff is crap ... and those photos were crap. Satisfied?

Now, lets talk about Ad Hominem attacks. You engage in Ad Hominem attacks right here in this website. Yet you furnish no proof that O'Brien is lazy and sloppy, no proof that Bosley is a liar, no proof of much (and speaking of that Lance, how much field time do you have out there in the nasty ol' bush?) but you are quick to label folks as crazy, liars, or whatever. Phil Klass was an SOB. He was disengenious, he was sneaky ... and I saved his skinny little ass from a big mean drunk in Pensacola Fl. in 1990. Did you ever even meet him? As a matter of fact I know a whole lot of folks in this playing field Lance. And I must say if you are lobbying for Klasses job perhaps you should ask me for some pointers. Like for example ... do you have any air time? Everybody knows that Klass, Oberg, Sheaffer, have lots of airtime ... radio, TV, etc. You want to stretch your skeptic pipes on DMR buddy? Maybe you will answer my questions there.

Ad Hominem attacks Lance. Say it real quick 3 times...... Ad Hominem attacks.

Decker

---------- Post added at 02:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:12 PM ----------

And I must say if you are lobbying for Klasses job perhaps you should ask me for some pointers. Like for example ... do you have any air time? Everybody knows that Klass, Oberg, Sheaffer, have lots of airtime ... radio, TV, etc. You want to stretch your skeptic pipes on DMR buddy? Maybe you will answer my questions there.

Ad Hominem attacks Lance. Say it real quick 3 times...... Ad Hominem attacks.

Decker

Hmmmmmmmm ....... Did Lance go silent?? Gee wilikers ... I extend an invite to appear on DMR and give Lance a chance to extend his skeptic props ... and he disappears. Do ya think maybe he is like ... ah, you know, ah ... checking with his HANDLERS??

decker

 

[The Pair of Cats]

Mechanicalbug is lancemoody? Hmmm. Lancemechanicalbugmoody? Mecanicallancemoodybug? Ad homi(whoops) Nauseum

---------- Post added at 02:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:01 PM ----------

So, there I am ... trolling the web .. looking for possible guests when I saw it!

Turning my head into an expulsion cavity De Void - Sarasota Herald-Tribune - Sarasota, FL - Archive Like, I was up on Billy Cox's DeVoid blog site .. you know, just kind of cruising in neutral when it jumped out at me ...

"Thanks for demonstrating clearly how richly deserved the laughter that greets this topic really is.
Needless to say, all of the photos are eminently laughable.
I love how whenever something is out of focus, she describes it as partially materialized. If this is true then my parents often seem to take images of my kids while they are partially materialized!

Note how Talbot vouches for the authenticity of the photos despite the fact that she was not present when they were taken. Now that’s science!

As to crop circles, the “compelling aspects” you so blithely present as fact are actually unproven and unaccepted by non-insane people. There are no alterations of the plants themselves–despite the representations made by nuts like Nancy Talbot. Apparently they only show up if your heart is pure and you really really want them to be there.

One of the best demonstrations of crop circle “science” is when the leading light of crop circle “research,” Colin Andrews, was filmed walking through a circle sagely commenting on all the reasons that this circle was a REAL one, citing all the usual unproven and completely subjective claptrap that circlers employ.

He was rather quieter after viewing a video tape of regular people creating that very circle.

But there is obviously still a crazy core of believers who will not be silenced, not by laughter, not by derision, and sure as hell not by reason.

Lance

by Lance Moody"

Hmm .. Lance Moody. Well I'll be danged .. that name kind of seemed somewhat familar. Lance Moody. Where had I seen that name before ?? Hmmmm.

Then when I dispelled my Alzheimer's I seemed to recall I might have seen the name somewhere on The Paracast. Damn ... let me look around.

OH! SHIT YEA! Now I remembered ...... wasn't he the guy that called Walter Bosley a liar? I seemed to recall (course now that I am getting so damned old ... sometimes it is hard to remember!) asking Lance Moody for some kind of proof that Walter Bosley lied.

Then I seemed to recall (somewhere in the dim recesses of my dwindling mind) Lance Moody coming out with another Zinger aimed at Chris O'Brien .... "everything Christopher O'Brien has to say, his methods, and his conclusions," [are] "rather undisciplined and lazy" and it finally hit me! Lance Moody is vying for Phil Klass's job! By God! Ad Hominem attacks are the answer. Lance Moody must of watched Klass, Oberg, Menzel, Peebles, Sheaffer and others for years! Yea! That's it!

Hey Lance Moody ... really nice fracken job there Buddy! Keep it up! Damn, I do love those well thought out and reasoned responses there Bucko!

There’s just so many paranormal claims and sadly so little of me!

Lance

by Lance Moody

:question:

Nice find, Don!!!

 

[The Pair of Cats]

Well thank you mechanicalbug. And here's me thinking that you had no sense of humor that we were aware of Hilarious? Of course! There's a non-insane person somewhere rolling around in a crop circle literally in stitches as we speak

 

[Angel of Ioren]

There's been a lot of skepticism hate on the paracast in the last little bit.
I'm surprised that Don hates skeptics so much when I consider him one as well, The only difference is that there are some cases that Don considers more worthy than others. There are some cases that I find interesting, but there's no proof of anything paranormal, just no explanation.
To everyone in general:
The the people that believe the cases you don't, you're just like a debunker to them. I don't think any cases of anything can be 100% attributed to the paranormal. Is there strange stuff going on out there? Hell yeah. Is proof of ghosts, ESP, gods, aliens, etc.? Definitely not. That's just one explanation that has been proposed, but there's no proof to assert that it's the right one. People like me prefer to stay firmly planted in the realm of the possible. When the impossible is proven to be possible, well, then I'll believe it.

I hope that makes sense and we can move on from all this skepticism bashing.

Angelo

 

[justcurious]

There's been a lot of skepticism hate on the paracast in the last little bit.

I hope that makes sense and we can move on from all this skepticism bashing.

Angelo

I don't bash > I challenge
I don't hate > I joke

And I consider myself a (true) sceptic who's not afraid to listen to both hemispheres of his brain.

 

[The Pair of Cats]

I don't bash > I challenge
I don't hate > I joke

And I consider myself a (true) sceptic who's not afraid to listen to both hemispheres of his brain.

I agree with you, justcurious. I think that the so called "hate", for want of a better term, has been directed at the people who disguise themselves as sceptics, people known collectively as "debunkers". And the list posted by you describes the tricks or methods they use to frame their arguments.

Originally Posted by Angel of Ioren
There's been a lot of skepticism hate on the paracast in the last little bit.

I hope that makes sense and we can move on from all this skepticism bashing.

Angelo

I'm making an assumption here but I don't think Don was talking about the "true Sceptics". He would probably consider himself a true sceptic as you quite rightly described, Angelo.( If i'm wrong about this please correct me Don!).
Also in regards to this particular thread he may have been more concerned about the Ad Hominem attacks on guests and others which the debunker style sceptics commonly use as an expression of their sceptodebunker methodology.
As has been expressed many times, the "list", shouldn't affect the true sceptics in any way including the vast majority of people on this forum, one would think!

 

[Decker]

I'm surprised that Don hates skeptics so much when I consider him one as well, The only difference is that there are some cases that Don considers more worthy than others.

I hope that makes sense and we can move on from all this skepticism bashing.

Angelo

Whoa ... whoa ... whoa !! Angelo, just where in hell did you get the idea that I hate skeptics?? Lets re-group for a second my friend. I most definitely do not hate skeptics and now I want to know where you came up with that?

I do hate dishonesty ... and have encountered that with many debunkers over the years .. but as you pointed out I am very skeptical about a lot of stuff. When I was still conducting active research I debunked one hell of a lot of crap in UFO Magazine and on the "air" on my various radio shows. Remember where I came from ... I had been a police officer and I used then and use now those skills I learned. Lets take a look at some of what I did debunk over the years. People and cases....
John Lear, Guy Kirkwood, George Green, Bill Cooper, Sean David Morton, the Admiral Ruk Fuk McDuck case, (and thats a story) Serpo, Haton, Billy Meier and the Ashtray Command, "Dr." Harley Bird ... and that is just off the top of my head. Want me to go back thru my files?

I hate the dishonesty that so many skeptical debunkers display Pal. Like Dr. Mike Shermer for example. I busted his UFO cherry on my radio show. I was the very first radio show Mike did on UFOs. Matter of fact you can hear that show here. First words out of Mike's mouth to me were to "kind of take it easy on me, I really don't know much about this stuff. (UFOs) But he was there to display his skeptical chops about these "crazy topics!" Skeptic by decree. Most of the skeptics just hated it when I would point out the flaws in their logic. For example Phil Klass when we were debating the Washington DC overflights in July and August 1952. When I pointed out to Klass his erroneous "facts" he threatened to hang up in mid-show and later more erroneous facts concerning why it took the Air Force over an hour to get jet fighters into DC airspace and I corrected him with the real facts (that I personally got from former Air Force spokesman Al Chop) and Klass started shouting Bull Shit .. Bull Shit .. Bull Shit and then he did hang up. The skeptics (perhaps) hated me because I wouldn't go sit in the corner like a good little "believer" and just keep my mouth shut.

Now, there are also many believers that hated me because I would piss all over their parade on bull shit and phony stories. The Guy Kirkwood case is one of my favorites. Guy, the super-secret Air Force interceptor pilot who "chased" UFOs back in the early 50's from a super duper top secret fighter base out of Utah ... in his slick photo-recon F-86 Sabre jet! Stories of some real derring do and when I asked to see his military papers (DD-214) to prove his chops ... I waited over a year and then exposed his phony ass. Ooo boy did I feel the love on that one. People like that super duper UFO researcher Bill Hamilton took every opportunity to slam me for several years on every forum he trolled on. Why he saw Guy's papers by God! So when I asked Bill to get Guy to furnish them for me ... well don't ya know ... Hamilton told me that "its not my job to do your job for you!" But of course Hamilton was telling everyone that my story was full of wrong "facts" by God. When I first asked him (btw numerous times) what my wrong facts were he ignored me then I demanded he tell me ... he said (finally) "well you got his middle name wrong! Except the SOB was using 3 names! How in hell would you know? But I didn't get his name wrong.

So Angelo, I think you owe me an apology for stating I hate skeptics. I most certainly do not. I try to treat everybody with respect until they show me none, then my attitude changes.

Decker

 

[Xylo]

Ad Hominem attacks are certainly never called for, particularly when dealing with belief systems. Just because a person believes in miracles, like a man-god rising from the dead or mysterious healings, does not mean that believer is "insane" or a "nutjob."

I, for one, discredit all of Talbot's work AFTER her relationship with that Robert guy-but her work beforehand was quite interesting, and seemed to be devoid of any belief system. I don't think her current relationship discredits her past work, nor her character. I do believe that it influences her current work.

It's easy to call someone "nutty" or "insane" when one thinks that their belief systems are, at the least, questionable. But it's another thing altogether to attack the evidence-and, I believe, that is what a reasonable person should be consider.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Don, I respect you, so I am sorry if I offended you - you're a cool dude. My apologies.
I guess it came out wrong, but you do seem to dislike many of the skeptics I highly respect - like Shermer, Randi, Sagan, etc. However, I think you probably agree with them on a lot of other stuff that they debunk like ESP, homeopathy, Uri Gellar, etc. It's just on the UFO topic where you find them to be cantankerous bastards.

 

[Decker]

Don, I respect you, so I am sorry if I offended you - you're a cool dude. My apologies.
I guess it came out wrong, but you do seem to dislike many of the skeptics I highly respect - like Shermer, Randi, Sagan, etc. However, I think you probably agree with them on a lot of other stuff that they debunk like ESP, homeopathy, Uri Gellar, etc. It's just on the UFO topic where you find them to be cantankerous bastards.

Well, lets take a look for just a sec. James Randi .. hmmm. Lets see, remember the Hale-Bopp comet fiasco? I sure do. Randi is disingenuous ... at best. I remember just about the time of the Heaven's Gate mass suicide, one morning here in LA I was just up and getting a cup of coffee and turned on my radio. There was Randi laying all the blame for the suicides on Art Bell because of Bell's irresponsible broadcasts and many goofy guests talking about the "aliens", the "spaceships" and of course lets not forget Ed Dames bull shit about a canister of plant killing pathogens on the way to wipe out Earth. Bell was simply trying to gear up his ratings and with his irresponsible broadcasts and no one without an agenda could really pin this on Bell. Matter of fact if you go read my "20 Years in the UFO Fog" file (you can read it in the sticky files) I addressed this about Randi.

Sagan ... while he did a lot of good in science and bringing science to the masses, was as disingenuous an SOB as ever there was when it came to UFOs. A typical debunker .. period.

Mike Shermer ... I once debated Shermer over at Occidental College in Dr. Scott Littleton's class and we started discussing Lt. Col. Phil Corso and his then new book "The Day After Roswell." Mike started in on Corso, he is a liar, he is a fraud, he made all this up .... and quite frankly it pissed me off. Not because of what Corso claimed in the book, but I knew Corso's background ... his military record .... and I knew who Corso was before the book came out because of his activisim regarding missing miltary MIAs/POWs in Congress. I landed on Shermer and forced him to admit that he never had even read the damn book. Catch that Angelo? Shermer had never read the book but he was doing his best to tear Corso up. Now by God, what is to respect about that?

Decker

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Well, lets take a look for just a sec. James Randi .. hmmm. Lets see, remember the Hale-Bopp comet fiasco? I sure do. Randi is disingenuous ... at best. I remember just about the time of the Heaven's Gate mass suicide, one morning here in LA I was just up and getting a cup of coffee and turned on my radio. There was Randi laying all the blame for the suicides on Art Bell because of Bell's irresponsible broadcasts and many goofy guests talking about the "aliens", the "spaceships" and of course lets not forget Ed Dames bull shit about a canister of plant killing pathogens on the way to wipe out Earth. Bell was simply trying to gear up his ratings and with his irresponsible broadcasts and no one without an agenda could really pin this on Bell. Matter of fact if you go read my "20 Years in the UFO Fog" file (you can read it in the sticky files) I addressed this about Randi.

Sagan ... while he did a lot of good in science and bringing science to the masses, was as disingenuous an SOB as ever there was when it came to UFOs. A typical debunker .. period.

Mike Shermer ... I once debated Shermer over at Occidental College in Dr. Scott Littleton's class and we started discussing Lt. Col. Phil Corso and his then new book "The Day After Roswell." Mike started in on Corso, he is a liar, he is a fraud, he made all this up .... and quite frankly it pissed me off. Not because of what Corso claimed in the book, but I knew Corso's background ... his military record .... and I knew who Corso was before the book came out because of his activisim regarding missing miltary MIAs/POWs in Congress. I landed on Shermer and forced him to admit that he never had even read the damn book. Catch that Angelo? Shermer had never read the book but he was doing his best to tear Corso up. Now by God, what is to respect about that?

Decker

I respectfully disagree with you on your feelings about them. They've all done a lot of work to promote science and reason. I guess I'm a fan of debunkers then. I don't know what else to tell you.
I'd like to know why you think Sagan was disingenuous about UFOs. He, like all true skeptics/debunkers, never found that there was any evidence that proved that UFOs were non-human aircraft. We all just want good evidence - for now, there is none that can't be disputed one way or another. Maybe one day there will be, and when that day comes I'll be glad to hear "I told you so," since I have no problem with being proven wrong.

By the way - I can't wait to see Penn and Teller discuss Area 51 tonight! Two more awesome skeptics, in my book.

 

[spacebrother]

By the way - I can't wait to see Penn and Teller discuss Area 51 tonight! Two more awesome skeptics, in my book.

I (respectfully) disagree.

Is Teller going to mime his part in the discussion?

 

[Angel of Ioren]

I (respectfully) disagree.

Is Teller going to mime his part in the discussion?

You would say that

Regardless, they're a good example of who I think of when I say skeptic. I can list a whole lot of people and the podcasts they have if you wish, but most of you here will call them debunkers, and I'm fine with that moniker at this point.

 

[Decker]

I respectfully disagree with you on your feelings about them. They've all done a lot of work to promote science and reason. I guess I'm a fan of debunkers then. I don't know what else to tell you.

I'd like to know why you think Sagan was disingenuous about UFOs.

Okay Angelo, lets see if I have this marked down correctly. I point out how Randi operated strictly from ideological standpoint regarding the Hale-Bopp mess, trying to lay blame on Art Bell, I suppose just to shore up his skeptical props and that is cool with you?

I pointed out how Mike Shermer denigrated a proud and patriotic WWII veteran, a man that served in the NSC under President Eisenhower, a man that headed up the U.S. Army's R&D at the Pentagon, how Shermer slandered him, (and by the way) once again PROVED my point about the Ad Hominem attack ... and admitted he never read one word of the man's book ... but the man was a liar and a fraud ... and that is okay with you?? Do I have all this right Angelo?

Decker

PS Sagin should be in another thread.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

That still doesn't destroy everything that they have ever done for the skeptical movement though. Look, I'm not going to change your opinion of them. That's fine.


Anyway, so that everyone knows what you're talking about, here's exactly what Randi said about the Hale-Bopp and the people that perpetuated the nonsense about the spaceship following it:

The Higher Source - a Dead End.

James Randi --- Wizard ([email protected])
Fri, 28 Mar 1997 19:18:00 -0500
Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: James Randi --- Wizard: "The A&E show...."
Previous message: James Randi --- Wizard: "April 1"
This morning we've seen another example of organized madness, with the
mass suicide of thirty-nine cult members in California. The immediate
question: how do otherwise intelligent people get to believe the crap
that they're offered? Certainly, the need to "belong" drives them
together, but the bizarre ideas that then separate them from society
need to be encouraged and cemented into place.
How to do that? Judging from other "successful" cults such as Jim
Jones and his Peoples' Temple -- another such suicide crowd -- and
from the recent Solar Temple suicides, heavy preaching of nuttery does
the job. And, without question, any support that can be obtained
through the media is eagerly sought and embraced. The strange notion
that media and media personalities would not give attention to
worthless ideas, seems to persist; exactly the opposite is true.
We're told that this cult embraced the stupid assertion that comet
Hale-Bopp is accompanied by a huge UFO, to which these dupes thought
they could migrate by killing themselves. Strange, weird notion. But
it was invented, promoted, and encouraged by two men who I believe
should now be confronted with the result of their callous "joke." Ed
Dames, a would-be "remote viewer" who has peppered the media with
outright lies about my long-standing challenge to "psychic" powers,
and who has said that I've refused to test his wondrous powers, came
up with the Hale-Bopp/UFO farce, and may have given the deluded Higher
Source people the final item they needed to convince them that suicide
would deliver them to Nirvana. Behind Dames, feeding off his nutty
notions, is radio personality Art Bell. Bell proudly claims that he's
heard nightly on 400 stations across the USA, and to hold on to that
audience, he unconscionably promotes every sort of stupidity that he
can attract; Ed Dames is his special pet and current "star."
I've been advised by a colleague that it was actually a Chuck Shramek
who first came up with the absurd claim of a "Saturn-like object"
supposedly following Comet Hale-Bopp around. Not to our surprise, he
was quickly put on the air by Art Bell, to spin his fantasies. Bell
knows how to pander to silly folks.
And a former "student" of Ed Dames, Courtney Brown, of the Farsight
Institute (maybe that should be Farside"?) says he dispatched a team
of Remote Viewers to go off into space and see this Hale-Bopp
companion close-up. Had we watched, we might have seen the Tooth
Fairy and Easter Bunny in that giddy group.
I understand that Brown and Dames aren't speaking now. Brown had the
nerve to offer remote-viewing videotapes for sale, the same as his
mentor is doing.
A nut breaking off from the tree.
Dames and Bell, j'accuse. You've giggled at those who have been
terrified by the lies, and you've chosen to ignore the possibilty that
suggestible people would accept those lies, and might act on them.
And I'm sure you have no trouble sleeping.
James Randi

 

[TClaeys]

I pointed out how Mike Shermer denigrated a proud and patriotic WWII veteran, a man that served in the NSC under President Eisenhower, a man that headed up the U.S. Army's R&D at the Pentagon, .

Respectfully I don't see how any of this matters in the least. It doesn't matter how well he served his country in regard to his claims of alien technology. If he is a liar then he is a liar. Plenty of military and other civilians, well respected or not, can be liars. I'm not defending Shermer at all, but you seem to be making the case that that because he was such a well respected man and served his country well that he isn't capable of lying.

Did I know the man?? NO, and I know you did. So I'm not going to profess that I know more than you or anyone else, but do I believe he is making it up or telling falsehoods?? At this point, yes I do.