Skeptic Brian Dunning Sentenced

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

we could go halvsies!

[Astra.]

we could go halvsies!

Real Estate is another passion of mine....let me think about the halvsies thing over night....oookay!

[Night Walker]

I appreciate the verbosity in the instance of clarity, it makes your position much clearer and I feel you are not taking many factors about how seriously Ancient Aliens nonsense is received due to the mediums is is propagated by.

Well it seems my verbosity is not increasing clarity for you when you still interpret my position as advocating for the alteration of history. So I’ll lessen it because this is not going anywhere. Rather than continue the ever-expanding exchange which pass one another like ships in the night I’ll just illustrate a couple of the misunderstandings and leave it at that:

I am not sure how you associated my comments with some forum posters with that which you call side stepping. I reiterated my experience that it happens to hold many similarities with the book you quoted, which I have not ever seen, yet you don;t accept that in some Indigenous tribes Yowie and Bunyip are synonymous?

No. You originally said:

Under the guise of entertainment nobody realises the only historical records we have are being eroded away, the Yowie Field is another I would like to include, Rex Gilroy coining of the term "Yowie" I find an insult to Indigenous Legend as a "Yowie" is a 6 foot ant like creature with large red eyes on the sides of it's head that eats people at night, not a hairy man. I would be surprised if even 0.1% of Yowie proponents even knew that.

When I questioned your source you replied:

My confirmation of the term is from the Jarowair people near Greenmount in Toowoomba, and if you look hard enough, some references exist on the net. LINK

When I stated that your source was an unconfirmed anecdote and the link you provided referenced a Wiki article which had been removed because it was erroneous you replied:

I'd say the people I spoke to are referring to the wide ranging legends that sometimes seem to confuse the Bunyip with the Yowie.

Passing the error back to your source for the anecdote, ignoring the erroneous LINK that you provided, flipping the Yowie-Bunyip connection back on to me, then providing a non-indigenous illustration of an insect-like Bunyip to qualify your original point is side-stepping. Maybe your Jarowair source got his/her information from the same erroneous Wiki article as you. After all, some dastardly indigenous folk have also resorted to referencing that Gilroy-rapscallion...

And I never tried to link them to Dunning, if you read the thread I am arguing the exact opposite and saying each case needs to be evaluated individually, my first post in this thread in fact.

And I agree with your position on Dunning. I stated that I was going to link my response back to Dunning not because I disagree with you on this but because he is what this thread was originally about (I dislike going too far off-topic).

You have me at a loss there, did I not say "UFOLOGY" deserves ridicule? Why yes I did, youre getting confused where I said that "losers propagate these lies" and gave you examples such as Mary Rodwell.

You also said:

Why on earth would you do that to yourself? Seriously? You are spending nights hanging around with losers who tell Ghost stories as opposed to booking time at Springbrook Observatory? Why would you do that to yourself?

Which one of us is confused here? Perhaps the by-product of too much verbosity - after all, you average over 10 posts per day on this forum for nearly 9 years...

I do not call all people associated with the alternate cultures as liars stupid and crazy

Nor do you display much respect to them as people. They’re only liars, stupid, and crazy if they write books, appear on TV, and have websites about it, right? ‘Cause they’re destroying the historical record when they change real things for their fictions. And when those evil, nefarious b******* get sufficient numbers to shadow the original sources that can offer verification of these original sources all will be lost! It’s happening now!

Waaaaay too serious, dude. But that is your right just as it is for others to go along with these alternative fictions in the first place so knock yourself out. I was wrong when I previously questioned your involvement on this particular forum – you are clearly at home here as one of us…

(Yes - I, too, am a wicked plagiarist...)

[Occult1]

Now you say that Raelism is nothing at all like UFOlogy right, but again, let me point out what the UFOlogy Society International says his organisation is about:

The core of the Raëlian religion is the belief that aliens designed humans and other life on Earth using genetic engineering and that humans mistook them for Gods

LINK

Now how is that different to what Ancient Aliens tells us?

The Ancient Astronaut Theory as pertained to Daniken's works is an ''astroarchaelogy'' according to him which is indeed a very controversial discipline to say the least. The idea and purpose is not the study of Unidentified Flying Object (UFO) but to search in the vestiges of ancient civilizations for 'proof' of extraterrestrial visitation. Not what I consider to be within the border of Ufology.

UFOlogy International also says and I quote:

Generally speaking, the roots of the Raëlian Movement are no different than a classic contactee scenario

Claud Vorilhon claims to have had an Alien visitation of a being in a spacecraft descending from the sky, speaking French to him in December 1973. He took this alleged experience as sign of revelation and went on in a religious zeal to found his Raelist movement.

I agree with your quote. Technically, this kind of experience would be of interest to certain Ufology's organizations collecting reports of alleged close encounters of UFOs if the witness proves to be reliable. This cannot be established concerning Mr Vorilhon.

But how does it have anything to do with the religion of Raelism as being indistinguishable from Ufology? Your arguments do not make any sens.

You misinterpret what people are saying to fit your bias.

Samm said they do not investigate claims yet:

They don't seem to be doing much more than most of the proponents doing their best impressions of chickens with their heads cut of babbling about UFO's and Nukes.

Commenting does not mean investigating nor has it anything to do with serious, open-minded research by competent individuals in the field of Ufology interested to find the truth. Of course Raelism will make the promotion of anything that can even remotely support their belief-system and mythology of the Elohim. There is no doubt about that.

Religious leaders are commenting on various issues all the time, Pope Francis recently commented on E.T visitation, on Alien batism (!), does that make him an Ufologist? The Dalai Lama has been invited to speak on science conferences in the past, does that make Buddhism a science? Not that it is my intention to link Raelism with Christianity or Buddhism, mind you.

All you are doing is an association fallacy and a very unconvincing one for that matter.

Edited August 21, 2014 by sam_comm

[psyche101]

Well it seems my verbosity is not increasing clarity for you when you still interpret my position as advocating for the alteration of history. So I’ll lessen it because this is not going anywhere. Rather than continue the ever-expanding exchange which pass one another like ships in the night I’ll just illustrate a couple of the misunderstandings and leave it at that:

Not when you keep saying the same thing, you keep trying to soften the alteration of Historical Record as modern storytelling yes? SImple and easy question that should clarify your position.

No. You originally said:

When I questioned your source you replied:

When I stated that your source was an unconfirmed anecdote and the link you provided referenced a Wiki article which had been removed because it was erroneous you replied:

Passing the error back to your source for the anecdote, ignoring the erroneous LINK that you provided, flipping the Yowie-Bunyip connection back on to me, then providing a non-indigenous illustration of an insect-like Bunyip to qualify your original point is side-stepping. Maybe your Jarowair source got his/her information from the same erroneous Wiki article as you. After all, some dastardly indigenous folk have also resorted to referencing that Gilroy-rapscallion...

Ohh, I see the link upset you.

Why didn't you concentrate on the original source, I said "of you look around other sources exist" and provided the link, yes I did a Google, found that, and offered it as further reference that you said did not exist, which was underhanded of you wasn't it? You did not say "Such a reference exists that is from a book I know is fictional" no, you said none exist and then went for the link and the throat. You set me up, and I applaud you for getting the better of me there. I can admit when I have been bested. If it makes you happy, I will concede that the link does not seem to be referenced and comes from an outside source and remain with the original reference which cannot be backed on the Internet, because as I keep pointing out, Australian Indigenous legend is largely oral. However I notice you did sidestep that the Yowie and Bunyip are synonymous in many Indigenous tribes and that the description easily fits both legends.

And I agree with your position on Dunning. I stated that I was going to link my response back to Dunning not because I disagree with you on this but because he is what this thread was originally about (I dislike going too far off-topic).

My apologies for any confusion.

You also said:

Which one of us is confused here? Perhaps the by-product of too much verbosity - after all, you average over 10 posts per day on this forum for nearly 9 years...

I am not confused and it was partly tongue in cheek, which is why I referenced people like Mary Rodwell who lives on the Sunny Coast and could well show up at a MUFON meeting as she likes to get around.

I am not confused at all, face it man, you are offended that you feel I may have lumped you with the "kooks" and you take offence to possibly being labelled as such, and no doubt your new found friends.

What has my posting regularity got to do with that? Rather an offensive and uncalled for comment that does not pertain to anything being discussed.

Nor do you display much respect to them as people. They’re only liars, stupid, and crazy if they write books, appear on TV, and have websites about it, right? ‘Cause they’re destroying the historical record when they change real things for their fictions. And when those evil, nefarious b******* get sufficient numbers to shadow the original sources that can offer verification of these original sources all will be lost! It’s happening now!

It is happening now, explain the term "Yowie" or Google Wondjina, see what comes up. Some of these sites even mix up Italian rock art with Australian cave paintings. They do not have the capacity to report these records properly, and therefore should do the right thing and step back so qualified people can. All they are doing is making a mess of things. You obviously do not have a grasp on how many people consider these "fictions" as accurate record. Yes, those nefarious b******* are making a quick buck from things that won't survive the might of National Geographic and the History Channel. It's math, but not rocket science. More people have access to entertainment TV than do to indigenous records. People leave history behind.

Waaaaay too serious, dude. But that is your right just as it is for others to go along with these alternative fictions in the first place so knock yourself out. I was wrong when I previously questioned your involvement on this particular forum – you are clearly at home here as one of us…

I honestly thought your irrelevant comment on how often I post already well established that.

(Yes - I, too, am a wicked plagiarist...)

Indeed you are, and I have to say far more childish and immature than I had given credit for as well. Perhaps that's why I "don't fit in" with "your" thinking. Rather disappointed in you actually, I expected a far more academic discussion from you.

[psyche101]

The Ancient Astronaut Theory as pertained to Daniken's works is an ''astroarchaelogy'' according to him which is indeed a very controversial discipline to say the least. The idea and purpose is not the study of Unidentified Flying Object (UFO) but to search in the vestiges of ancient civilizations for 'proof' of extraterrestrial visitation. Not what I consider to be within the border of Ufology.

How did the Ancient Aliens get here? What of the inane and stupid claims about the Abydos so called "helicopter"? What about the far fetched UFOlogist claims on Vimena? What are they? Pork Chops?

You are trying to segregate UFOlogy to suit your argument, good god man, grow up a bit. Perhaps it might be best if you give us your extensive list of items you consider "associated with UFOlogy but not UFOlogy"? I imagine that might take a few pages to from what I am seeing.

Claud Vorilhon claims to have had an Alien visitation of a being in a spacecraft descending from the sky, speaking French to him in December 1973. He took this alleged experience as sign of revelation and went on in a religious zeal to found his Raelist movement.

He "made contact" and because his message is plagiarizing the Bible instead of the standard "You are destroying your planet we are here to help you" makes the difference does it? You know what, I don't think it does. Perhaps you can clarify the major difference there.

Claude Horhillion is scum of the earth and if ET was to decide he was the best ambassador for earth, I would rather ET not came back, wouldn't you?

I agree with your quote. Technically, this kind of experience would be of interest to certain Ufology's organizations collecting reports of alleged close encounters of UFOs if the witness proves to be reliable. This cannot be established concerning Mr Vorilhon.

But how does it have anything to do with the religion of Raelism as being indistinguishable from Ufology? Your arguments do not make any sens.

Can you distinguish the nonsense Hastings rabbles on with from the comment Raelians made in that link? That is what I asked you to do already, can you do it or not?

How many posts do I have to make outlining the same things that Raelians and UFOlogists do. I think you overestimate the impact of UFOlogy.

You misinterpret what people are saying to fit your bias.

You know, I have very much the same impression of you. You have not had the balls to stand up and admit when you have been wrong once, you make incorrect references, you reference defunct useless organisation and get terms wrong all over the place, you are not even man enough to admit when you ARE wrong and have been proven so, so I suggest you get you your high horse, you're only implicating yourself further. Man Up a bit mate.

Commenting does not mean investigating nor has it anything to do with serious, open-minded research by competent individuals in the field of Ufology interested to find the truth. Of course Raelism will make the promotion of anything that can even remotely support their belief-system and mythology of the Elohim. There is no doubt about that.

That takes half the UFOlogists out of UFOlogy. Most of them simply regurgitate old cases and claim they saw something "between the lines" that's no different to what a UFO religion claims.

How is UFOlogy/ETH not a "belief" system?

Religious leaders are commenting on various issues all the time, Pope Francis recently commented on E.T visitation, on Alien batism (!), does that make him an Ufologist? The Dalai Lama has been invited to speak on science conferences in the past, does that make Buddhism a science? Not that it is my intention to link Raelism with Christianity or Buddhism, mind you.

It is not the core of their beliefs by any means, and is a subject that is asked when it was realised the Vatican had a decent observatory. It's a controversial issue that many perceive negates God, but they were mistaken. Like you trying "to take down a skeptic" people revel in trying to put a mark on religion. Honestly, if you cannot see the difference there, then I have underestimated you.

A UFO religion is not a 2,000 year old tradition that has been shaped and moulded by generations, you seem to be leaning on the "religion" side of the equation, but that's like Scientology, just a tax dodge. Really, they are cults using the reference "religion" for legal tax evasion. Why do you think that Scientology went so far as to set up IRS people with prostitutes in compromising positions, followed by the sudden exchange if large parcels of land which was then followed by the step up from cult to religion offering tax free status for Scientology? You call that a genuine "religion" do you?

All you are doing is an association fallacy and a very unconvincing one for that matter.

I am afraid what you need is a mirror fella. You are not only unconvincing, you are obviously largely ignorant with regards to this subject, you should Man Up and admit it.

[psyche101]

A disagreement with psyche101 or even a nuance with regard to these controversial topics makes you either an ignorant or a proponent of the ETH.

You got that wrong too, Good God man.

YOU are ignorant because you keep getting basic references wrong, quote defunct and useless organisation run by people who the scientific community finds a dead set joke, do not have a grasp on even the most popular cases and the ones you claim you are familiar with you seem to be lacking great detail about and also reference incorrectly when basic widely used term would apply.

Understandi now? You have displayed ignorance, and I called you out on it. You have taken offence to that. Which is a shame, only deliberate ignorance is shameful, as for the general kind, we all suffer in some area or another. Even I believe it or not.

Why do you refuse to admit that you are new to this field? Everyone has to start someplace you know. It's not a crime. You and "others who are female and shall remain nameless for sooking reasons" above obviously are not well versed in this field, why do you find that an insult? And why do you find others offering to correct your information as insulting? I cannot fathom why such assistance is seen as an attack. Seems very childish to me. Is it because you are that fond of the ETH that you simply don't want another realistic and more mundane answer?

[Lilly]

No more of the personal remarks and snide little insults. Discuss the subject matter not one another.

• 3e. Flamebaiting: Do not taunt or bait another member in to an argument.
  
• 3f. Abusive behaviour: Do not be rude, insulting, offensive, snide, obnoxious or abusive towards other members
  

Edited August 21, 2014 by Lilly
oops

[DONTEATUS]

F-14, F-15, F-16 `s there all child`s toys compared to my FTL sport model`s .You wanna see one ? .

Well I`ll give you Bob Lazars number LoL !

[Merc14]

F-14, F-15, F-16 `s there all child`s toys compared to my FTL sport model`s .You wanna see one ? .

Well I`ll give you Bob Lazars number LoL !

HERESY!!!! LOL. I can't help it, they are all distinctly different aircraft that I trained with for years.