Tracking the Chupacabra

[Kieran]

@Kieran



You may be right but wouldn't you really rather be able to say that I was wrong? If someone showed me that the facts behind one of my beliefs was flawed, I wouldn't care if they were close-minded or open minded or what. Wrong is wrong.

I do approach this stuff thinking that the chances of finding something truly paranormal are very low, almost non-existent.
Do you really think that if I saw evidence for something that was unmistakably paranormal, that I would turn away and deny it?

All I can say is that you don't know me.

Lance

I will accept you need to see established evidence, before believing in it. Yet please don't be so hypocritical of the all the informational UFO evidence, there is out there on the internet, some of this information, does prove some UFO experiences are real, and some individuals across the world, are being effected by their unique UFO experiences.

Every person who've gone and reported seeing UFO's can't be classed as being simpleton's liars and fools, this is were your argument, fails to impress. How many UFO cases still today, have yet to be explained, by believers, skeptics, cynics or debunker's? We all have opinions Lance, each side does, believer and nonbeliever, but nobody can claim with a straight face, in my opinion, something is not going on here. I do understand, your have right to ask for prove that these objects, would be a sign, that this planet is been visited by nonhuman's, i accept again your right to challenge thoses claim by the UFO believer, but you need to accept this first.

The UFO community can't positively ever prove to you the nonbeliever, any of this is really happening, we can sway your opinion however with evidence got from a number of reputable sources, some of the evidence would be in the form of official documentation which does show military briefings and discussions have taken place, were the subject of UFO'S was discussed, at the highest level. The judgments, assessments, reports and letters that were circulated, after the ending of these high level discussions, do convey a plain message, that Military sources across the world, not just the United States Military, took the subject of UFO's very seriously believed it is was real, not fictitious, but it wasn't a subject that threated national security.So we have people in high positions, some of whom protect the security of countries, are confirming the phenomenon is real it happening, so up to you to make what you will of that analysis by them, we also have civilian accounts, many radar returns of UFO'S, many pilots observing these objects, photographic evidence and some video and so on.

This evidence a least suggests a real phenomenon is there, you have choosen to dismiss this type of evidence, which to me doesn't make lot of sense. I think your wrong to do so. Put this way would you dismiss photographic evidence of something taking place in a photograph, from 1950's say? This photograph is showing a man walking by the beach with his dog. I think your answer would be no, now if that same picture had the same man walking with his dog on the beach, but this time ok there was a unmistakable saucer UFO in the picture, I like to hear your terrestrial explanation for that, but of course you can claim hoax, but the further back you go, the harder it will be for you, to easily dismiss the photographic evidence there is for UFO's..

I would find it so nauseating debating about the subject of UFO's, if i truly did not believe in it. It one of the reasons why i will never get people like you, Lance, i get your arguments, but call me Irish, i think there is something wrong with people like you, when you come here to post everyday mind already made up, but will debate still everyday about this crazy subject, odd behavior in least from were I am looking. Your not stupid, but there is obviously a personality need to discuss this subject, my line of thinking finds that extremely odd.

 

[softbeard]

And to answer softbeard - I am most defiantly a fan of Radford's and as I have stated in other posts, I am completely biased.

Don't get me wrong, Angelo. I see no problem with being a fan of Ben. I do have problems with Ben's logic and the arguments he uses, but that is another matter.
As for Jerusalem, as I said; whatever. You did not see me starting that topic here. It is true, I have tried to prod people for specific details when they present their arguments. Doing so has the side-effect of also exposing some of the assumptions they make and the logic path of their argument. I try to stay neutral throughout this, but sometimes...

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Don't get me wrong, Angelo. I see no problem with being a fan of Ben. I do have problems with Ben's logic and the arguments he uses, but that is another matter.
As for Jerusalem, as I said; whatever. You did not see me starting that topic here. It is true, I have tried to prod people for specific details when they present their arguments. Doing so has the side-effect of also exposing some of the assumptions they make and the logic path of their argument. I try to stay neutral throughout this, but sometimes...

No problem softbeard.

 

[JD Thompson]

This was a splendid show. I'd love to hear more like it. Down to earth, fact-based, and grounded. Hearing that poor fellow talk about hearing a voice in his ear telling him about underground bases last week was a low point.....

 

[stphrz]

I will accept you need to see established evidence, before believing in it. Yet please don't be so hypocritical of the all the informational UFO evidence, there is out there on the internet, some of this information, does prove some UFO experiences are real, and some individuals across the world, are being effected by their unique UFO experiences.

Do you perhaps mean hypercritical? Hypocritical means to act in a fashion inconsistent with your beliefs or to pretend to have virtues you don't possess. I don't think it's fair to describe lance in that fashion.

Hypercritical means nit picky. Well, yeah, you could use that to describe lance.

I say, any evidence should be nit picked. If it's solid it will stand up.

As for proof? You really need to ask what exactly is the evidence and what does it prove. Does a strange object in the sky moving around in a strange manner prove visiting alien spaceships? Is such a logical leap warranted?

Every person who've gone and reported seeing UFO's can't be classed as being simpleton's liars and fools, this is were your argument, fails to impress. How many UFO cases still today, have yet to be explained, by believers, skeptics, cynics or debunker's? We all have opinions Lance, each side does, believer and nonbeliever, but nobody can claim with a straight face, in my opinion, something is not going on here. I do understand, your have right to ask for prove that these objects, would be a sign, that this planet is been visited by nonhuman's, i accept again your right to challenge thoses claim by the UFO believer, but you need to accept this first.

Something is going on. But what? I don't think skeptics think everyone who sees a ufo is a liar or a fool. They think the person made a mistake. That there is, or could be, an explanation that doesn't rise to the level of the paranormal. Depending on the case their arguments can be quite convincing. Other times less so.

The UFO community can't positively ever prove to you the nonbeliever, any of this is really happening, we can sway your opinion however with evidence got from a number of reputable sources, some of the evidence would be in the form of official documentation which does show military briefings and discussions have taken place, were the subject of UFO'S was discussed, at the highest level. The judgments, assessments, reports and letters that were circulated, after the ending of these high level discussions, do convey a plain message, that Military sources across the world, not just the United States Military, took the subject of UFO's very seriously believed it is was real, not fictitious, but it wasn't a subject that threated national security.So we have people in high positions, some of whom protect the security of countries, are confirming the phenomenon is real it happening, so up to you to make what you will of that analysis by them, we also have civilian accounts, many radar returns of UFO'S, many pilots observing these objects, photographic evidence and some video and so on.

I don't think the skeptics really have too much problem with that. It's just when someone holds up these documents and says "Ah ha! See! ALIENS!", their eyes glaze over and they start feeling a little bitchy That the military went a bit buggy over it in the past is part of the historical record. That it proves alien visitors is something else.

And who is the "ufo community" and what exactly is it they "believe?" Are they monolithic and uniform? Does everyone in this community believe the same thing? Is there some kind of creed by which "believers" and "non believers" are separated? To mangle a well known phrase "I find your abundance of faith disturbing."

This evidence a least suggests a real phenomenon is there, you have choosen to dismiss this type of evidence, which to me doesn't make lot of sense. I think your wrong to do so. Put this way would you dismiss photographic evidence of something taking place in a photograph, from 1950's say? This photograph is showing a man walking by the beach with his dog. I think your answer would be no, now if that same picture had the same man walking with his dog on the beach, but this time ok there was a unmistakable saucer UFO in the picture, I like to hear your terrestrial explanation for that, but of course you can claim hoax, but the further back you go, the harder it will be for you, to easily dismiss the photographic evidence there is for UFO's..

I agree with this for the most part. But I kinda think the real objection a skeptic would have is the implication of proof of extraterrestrials. The photo, even if completely genuine, is incapable of doing that. No matter how many thousands of words a picture is worth, it's not worth that much.

I would find it so nauseating debating about the subject of UFO's, if i truly did not believe in it. It one of the reasons why i will never get people like you, Lance, i get your arguments, but call me Irish, i think there is something wrong with people like you, when you come here to post everyday mind already made up, but will debate still everyday about this crazy subject, odd behavior in least from were I am looking. Your not stupid, but there is obviously a personality need to discuss this subject, my line of thinking finds that extremely odd.

This is really just judgemental crap.

What does lance really believe? Do you even know? Would you like to know why he's here? Instead of jumping to conclusions why not just ask him. Makes sense doesn't it?

I would find it so boring to carry on a conversation with someone who agreed with me. I like to debate. I like to be challenged. It's fun. Perhaps lance feels the same. Maybe he likes some of the folks here. Just because you disagree with someone's views on something doesn't mean you have to hate them. That really may be all there is to it. There's nothing wrong with that, your armchair psychoanalysis notwithstanding.

"Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar."

 

[Angel of Ioren]

You really nailed it stphrz. That's pretty much exactly how I feel about this topic, and it describes Ben Radford accurately as well.

 

[dyingsun]

You (Lance and Angelo) both truly are Hyenas waiting for the smell of a drop of blood in the air.

Sorely needed as well.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

You (Lance and Angelo) both truly are Hyenas waiting for the smell of a drop of blood in the air.

Sorely needed as well.

Thanks, right?
I'm trying to be more moderate in my skepticism. I think Radford has a good philosophy.

 

[Kieran]

Do you perhaps mean hypercritical? Hypocritical means to act in a fashion inconsistent with your beliefs or to pretend to have virtues you don't possess. I don't think it's fair to describe lance in that fashion.

Hypercritical means nit picky. Well, yeah, you could use that to describe lance.

I say, any evidence should be nit picked. If it's solid it will stand up.

As for proof? You really need to ask what exactly is the evidence and what does it prove. Does a strange object in the sky moving around in a strange manner prove visiting alien spaceships? Is such a logical leap warranted?

Something is going on. But what? I don't think skeptics think everyone who sees a ufo is a liar or a fool. They think the person made a mistake. That there is, or could be, an explanation that doesn't rise to the level of the paranormal. Depending on the case their arguments can be quite convincing. Other times less so.

I don't think the skeptics really have too much problem with that. It's just when someone holds up these documents and says "Ah ha! See! ALIENS!", their eyes glaze over and they start feeling a little bitchy That the military went a bit buggy over it in the past is part of the historical record. That it proves alien visitors is something else.

And who is the "ufo community" and what exactly is it they "believe?" Are they monolithic and uniform? Does everyone in this community believe the same thing? Is there some kind of creed by which "believers" and "non believers" are separated? To mangle a well known phrase "I find your abundance of faith disturbing."

I agree with this for the most part. But I kinda think the real objection a skeptic would have is the implication of proof of extraterrestrials. The photo, even if completely genuine, is incapable of doing that. No matter how many thousands of words a picture is worth, it's not worth that much.

This is really just judgemental crap.

What does lance really believe? Do you even know? Would you like to know why he's here? Instead of jumping to conclusions why not just ask him. Makes sense doesn't it?

I would find it so boring to carry on a conversation with someone who agreed with me. I like to debate. I like to be challenged. It's fun. Perhaps lance feels the same. Maybe he likes some of the folks here. Just because you disagree with someone's views on something doesn't mean you have to hate them. That really may be all there is to it. There's nothing wrong with that, your armchair psychoanalysis notwithstanding.

"Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar."

Know I used the right word. Hypocritical means righteous, holier than thou, superior, insincere and so on I think Lance displays this characteristic often, when he writes about the paranormal. Lance isn't overly critical, every time he write's, so I wouldn't have used, that particular word to express what I wanted to say.

I have asked myself this all the time, and I have expressed already to Lance, what we do have in the form of evidence to prove the existence of UFO's. Lance isn't a stupid man, he might not belief it is alien, but i wonder does Lance truly belief, that nobody ever has seen these things? The prove is/60 years of documented UFO cases, which do show beyond all doubt in my opinion, many different types of solid-objects have shown up in our skies, these objects have an ability to fly around our atmosphere at will, and nobody as far as we are aware on this planet, has yet to claim some type of ownership of any of those objects seen!

Doesn't mean these flying objects belong to some race of people from a far away world, or Time Travelers, but considering the length of time people have been experiencing the phenomenon, and how the phenomenon, reacts to us civilians on the ground, and the way military establishments across the world have too reacted to this phenomenon, one therefore can safely assume these objects may not be of human design. It a theory, but all the information we have does conclude it to be a safe bet at this time. If you have personally have read over any of the official released documentation talking about the UFO phenomenon, that leap you bring up, has many times often been made by the elites who've been elected by the people to run past governments across the world. What about the documents that show high ranking military figures openly expressing opinions and admiting this phenomenon exists for real, all have gone over the final hurdle, and claimed something is going on here, that can't be explained. A leap well, ok who do you believe nobody If you don't trust civilians, and you don't trust Governments, and you don't trust the Military-Navy-Air Force, who do you trust nobody being a Skeptic?

Made a mistake because the Skeptical community, said so, well obviously people make mistakes, but thousands of people have reportedly over the generations seen something they had know reference for, so how big does these mistakes need to get before you change your mind? There is nothing that is currently flying around our skies, or anything that could possibly enter this atmosphere from space, can account, and will ever explain what people have been seeing, and have been suggesting happened to them. Your just just being foolishness, like how can someone now explain an object made of silver circle in shape flying around our skies, lights flashing on and off, sometimes, with what we know today we have as technology, you show me the design factory for that object, and i will have know problem gladly will change my mind about certain elements of this phenomenon straight away for you!

I personally believe you really only have two sides in this debate, if you look at it objectively, believer and non believer. Some people belief everything, Some belief half of everything, so people belief this is all crap, but obviously everyone who believes there is something too the UFO experience-phenomenon, still does belief overall!You can break down of course, both sides, and debate each sides point of view thoroughly, but still often the argument just boils to two sides arguing for one side of another, there maybe is a middle option, but often that middle option, is not seen when people arguing-or discuss cough the paranormal in debate.

Finally to Lance. My intention was never to insult him or be too Judgemental, actually I don't like insulting people just to get my view or point across to others. It only usually happen's here when I get frustrated or try to get someone to understand something i am saying more clearly. People I know tell me sometimes i am very calm patient individual, ok anyway enough about me.

Lance often will describe some of his beliefs in his posting, so I can from that see an element of his personality in his posting, it not a perfect science by any means of course lol.. Lance also is a good debater, i will admit he is good at finding flaws in certain paranormal experiences, but at the same time he overlooks things or will not talk about certain things that prove his view is flawed, his mind is already decided. My original point still stands if he truly believes there is nothing to any of this, why does he bother wasting valuable hours of his time each day coming here, study of human behavior crap, you don't need to come here to this forum everyday to study why people believe in the paranormal. There is other venues that will be more fulfilling for Lance.

I said before I like Lance, i think he be alright person if you met him in real life off the computer, but still his motives for being here are hard to understand considering his opinion is nothing is going on!

 

[softbeard]

Kieran, you have to understand. Everybody has their own persperctive. They see everything through a color of their own making. People of one character will see things that are obvious to them, though to others the subject will appear ridiculous. When people look at strange phenomenon, or something mysterious their prejudices come into play. To some, their minds are already made up as to what the cause of the mystery is, so they prejudice themselves in their response when queried, even if they are unconcious of doing so. I have found that it is a rare few that even try to remain neutral, and even with those people it's a question mark whether they have suceeded .

 

[stphrz]

Kieran, you have to understand. Everybody has their own persperctive. They see everything through a color of their own making. People of one character will see things that are obvious to them, though to others the subject will appear ridiculous. When people look at strange phenomenon, or something mysterious their prejudices come into play. To some, their minds are already made up as to what the cause of the mystery is, so they prejudice themselves in their response when queried, even if they are unconcious of doing so. I have found that it is a rare few that even try to remain neutral, and even with those people it's a question mark whether they have suceeded .

I don't think it has anything to do with prejudice or bias. I really don't.

Trying to be neutral is just foolish.

The phenomenon, in it's totality is absurd. Fact.

By any objective rational basis upon which the human mind can judge, it is all completely absurd. The acceptance of this by the skeptics is a point in their favor. The denial of it by "believers" is a point against. The skeptics are closer to the truth. The mistake, I think, the skeptics are making is simply the logical rejection of something that has all the appearance of not making any sense. The "believers" mistake is the abandonment of logic altogether. They do everything they can, say anything to make it make sense in a literal nuts and bolts way.

The reason I think the skeptics are mistaken is because they aren't taking into account that the phenomenon is not just absurd it is metalogical. That is to say, they aren't seeing the symbolic meaning behind the obvious contradictions. At least they see the contradictions. They are halfway there.

Metalogic can be illustrated by the consistency of these two statements:

Does Santa have a long white beard? Yes.
Is Santa real? No.

A skeptic like lance, despite his doubts about its reality, has expressed interest in the ufo phenomenon at sociological level. However, I don't think he sees much beyond its superficial pop culture influence. In my opinion, he just needs to come a little further.

The believers on the other hand have a long way to go.

The believers believe for all the wrong reasons. The skeptics doubt for all the right reasons.

That's why I like the skeptics better

 

[mike]

But its not always as simple as yes/no ..... black/white
A common mistake i see made here is the assumption that if your not a skeptic, then you must be a believer.

This is not always so

I would even go as far as to suggest that absolutes like skeptic and believer are the exception and not the rule, Most people are open minded to the possibilitys and thus they explore them in places like this.
Our two hosts are prime examples, let me ask you are Gene and Chris Skeptics or Believers......

Or are they something in between........ ?

Trying to be neutral is just foolish

 

[stphrz]

But its not always as simple as yes/no ..... black/white
A common mistake i see made here is the assumption that if your not a skeptic, then you must be a believer.

This is not always so

I would even go as far as to suggest that absolutes like skeptic and believer are the exception and not the rule, Most people are open minded to the possibilitys and thus they explore them in places like this.
Our two hosts are prime examples, let me ask you are Gene and Chris Skeptics or Believers......

Or are they something in between........ ?

In the context I was using the term "believer" is an ETH proponent. In the context I was using the term "skeptic" is one who has doubts about the reality of the phenomenon.

Of course there are many that don't fit either category, but that wasn't what I was talking about at all. I don't think I am anything remotely resembling someone who is "in between." In between what? A lot of others are not either. Hence my view that somehow being "neutral" is nonsensical.

 

[The Pair of Cats]

But its not always as simple as yes/no ..... black/white
A common mistake i see made here is the assumption that if your not a skeptic, then you must be a believer.

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 ----------

In the context I was using the term "believer" is an ETH proponent. In the context I was using the term "skeptic" is one who has doubts about the reality of the phenomenon.

Of course there are many that don't fit either category, but that wasn't what I was talking about at all. I don't think I am anything remotely resembling someone who is "in between." In between what? A lot of others are not either. Hence my view that somehow being "neutral" is nonsensical.

If you have doubt about the phenomena, where exactly does that place you if you draw a line between one extreme to the other?
I think having doubt places you in the middle or in a neutral position.
Have you ever seen an unidentified flying object stphrz?

 

[stphrz]

If you have doubt about the phenomena, where exactly does that place you if you draw a line between one extreme to the other?

What is the phenomenon?

You also have to define what it is you doubt. If you doubt, that is not a neutral position because you can doubt more than one hypothesis. This isn't a straight line continuum. There are far more than two sides in issues of the paranormal. Neutrality would ential giving equal consideration to any statement or belief. Neutrality entails not taking sides. That is not what a skeptic does. Not by a long shot. They are not indecisive. They do take a side. Their own. I know that because I disagree (respectfully) with them.

I think having doubt places you in the middle or in a neutral position.

Um, no?

Have you ever seen an unidentified flying object stphrz?

What's that? I'm serious.

 

[mike]

In the context I was using the term "believer" is an ETH proponent. In the context I was using the term "skeptic" is one who has doubts about the reality of the phenomenon.

Of course there are many that don't fit either category, but that wasn't what I was talking about at all. I don't think I am anything remotely resembling someone who is "in between." In between what? A lot of others are not either. Hence my view that somehow being "neutral" is nonsensical.

Yeah.......you still didnt answer the question, do you think the hosts are skeptical, believers or how did you put it ? foolishly neutral ?

David Biedny for example reports seeing a large cigar shaped object from which smaller ones emerged...would that make him in your own words an absurd believer for all the wrong reasons ?

Its one thing to say i'm skeptical or i believe or i'm neutral, but youve gone that extra mile and attached values to them, values like absurd, foolish ,nonsensical , wrong and right

I'm sure others like me, are very interested in your views. are the hosts skeptics ? absurd believers for all the wrong reasons or foolishly neutral ?

Do tell...................

 

[The Pair of Cats]

What is the phenomenon?

Well, any phenomenon you take a position on. It doesn't matter which.

You also have to define what it is you doubt. If you doubt, that is not a neutral position because you can doubt more than one hypothesis. This isn't a straight line continuum. There are far more than two sides in issues of the paranormal. Neutrality would ential giving equal consideration to any statement or belief. Neutrality entails not taking sides. That is not what a skeptic does. Not by a long shot. They are not indecisive. They do take a side. Their own. I know that because I disagree (respectfully) with them.

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 exist. That this is the result of wishful thinking on behalf of the true believers. I may be able to say that i doubt that there are beings from zeta reticulii living in your basement but that doesn't mean that i should discount the fact that beings from zeta reticulii maybe visiting this earth. So i basically remain neutral to the idea of beings from zeta reticulii as there is no solid evidence to sway me either way. All i can say that all of the above may be possible. When evidence appears that can sway me to either of those sides I may then take one of those sides. Until then i remain sceptically neutral. I don't see how that may be foolish.
I just don't think that being sceptical necessarily means taking a side, any side. If as a sceptic i take a side (my own), it may well be neutrality.
Within the subject of UFOs we have several topics of discussion.On some of the subjects you may well have definite opinions, one way or the other. But on some the evidence for all sides may not be compelling enough for you the sceptic to consider one over the other. Perhaps you would then find yourself in a neutral position.

What's that? I'm serious

So am I. I ask out of pure curiosity, no malice intended. I have not seen one myself but I don't preclude the idea that others have. I also think that some may be lying about their sightings for various reasons. Some may be exaggerating or just plain mistaken. Some may have indeed seen a structured craft. All of those are possible in my mind. If you, or anyone, have seen a daytime sighting of a structured UFO your position on that subject may be totally different than if you were hearing about the same from a friend, aquaintance or even a complete stranger.

I'm sure others like me, are very interested in your views. are the hosts skeptics ? absurd believers for all the wrong reasons or foolishly neutral ?
Do tell...................

I'd like to hear your opinion on that as well

 

[Kieran]

Kieran, you have to understand. Everybody has their own persperctive. They see everything through a color of their own making. People of one character will see things that are obvious to them, though to others the subject will appear ridiculous. When people look at strange phenomenon, or something mysterious their prejudices come into play. To some, their minds are already made up as to what the cause of the mystery is, so they prejudice themselves in their response when queried, even if they are unconcious of doing so. I have found that it is a rare few that even try to remain neutral, and even with those people it's a question mark whether they have suceeded .

Oh I understand, but still for my side, just trying to understand the other side of the argument it very difficult. I think it obvious to many the other side of the argument just ignores stuff just because it doesn't suit their own view of the world. That to me is very wrong, but i understand the point your making here, and its a good one.

My mind isn't decided on what I saw, with my own experiences. But to me I have at this time ruled out humans been the cause of it. It not because i wish it to be so, frankly there is nothing in my experiences that tells me for sure this was aliens, but my experiences are not normal, that I do know for sure, and if aliens do exist i probably shit myself if i ever had contact with them. I prefer it the way it is now, perfectly happy for them to not abduct me at night from bed lol, and frankly still not sure if my sightings are just a random thing, or something else i mean, it just not normal for a human being to have three sightings of Ufos's, it weird stuff. But it could be just that I was just in the right place at the right time to see it, just don't know, but it very possible.

At end of the day I know my experiences are real, and don't need to prove this to anyone not selling anything or looking fro attention of anyone here or elsewhere. I would like if this stuff never happened to me. It something i wouldn't wish on anyone, it caused a bit of conflict in past relationships, been interested in this stuff so much, but when you have real experiences, it hard to ignore the subject, but at the same time with all the problems i have had, how can you not be intrigued by the subject of UFO's?

I think i would be skeptic if i did not have these experiences, but i am an open minded individual. Not sure if i would be be a Skeptic like Lance, more closer to Angel view on things I believe, hard to know for sure what if?

Mike.* I think David had a real experience, but I asked David a question, one time about his experience in Venezuela with the Cigar ship, he ignored it or he might not have read it, not sure?

But David described seeing three disks fly out of the Cigar craft... his brother Barry however described seeing lights only, but he was looking at the Cigar ship- object from another position from David, but this was in evening time wasn't dark. However there is obvious difference between Barry and David one seeing lights, and one seeing a number of solid objects -disks. Still can't explain that.

 

[stphrz]

Yeah.......you still didnt answer the question, do you think the hosts are skeptical, believers or how did you put it ? foolishly neutral ?

David Biedny for example reports seeing a large cigar shaped object from which smaller ones emerged...would that make him in your own words an absurd believer for all the wrong reasons ?

Its one thing to say i'm skeptical or i believe or i'm neutral, but youve gone that extra mile and attached values to them, values like absurd, foolish ,nonsensical , wrong and right

I'm sure others like me, are very interested in your views. are the hosts skeptics ? absurd believers for all the wrong reasons or foolishly neutral ?

Do tell...................

How clear do I have to be? They are none of those things. You and Cats seem to be making up your own definitions and expect me answer within your own limited framework. If someone's doubts makes them neutral then everyone is neutral and a fool.

I think the hosts of the Paracast have their own very definite personal opinions on the paranormal. Some of Chris' views are at right angles to both your views and mine. And lance's. He is certainly not neutral. He has put forth his own interesting take on the paranormal that is thought provoking. I don't think he would go along with you trying to place him "somewhere in between" any two points of veiw. My opinion. If I'm wrong about his take on this I'll let him correct me.

As for Gene, again I can't speak for him. You'll have to ask him yourself. I don't consider him to be neutral. Unless you want to try to equate a nuanced position with neutral.

And yes it's true, I'm very opinionated and not the least bit diplomatic.Like everyone else I do place value on arguments, evidence and different points of view. Unlike some others I have no problem saying exactly what I think.

As for Kieran, I don't consider him to be a believer. Unlike you and Trajanus he is not dogmatic. He is not so arrogant as to actually claim parsimony for his thoughts about the phenomenon.

 

[Kieran]

I not sure how it easy it would have been for David, it expensive to travel, and his experience was in the 70's would a record still exist, not sure. But I understand your frustration, when i asked him that question nobody else asked him he never replied back to me. It was a valid question. I worry about people who claim such close contact with aliens without showing any evidence, but Lance seriously you must have come to some realization something is going on here. There is just too many sightings across the world for nothing to be happening, people from every walk of life have seen these things, it not my fault i never asked for this burden. But I understand why you have doubts about such claims.