Chewie1990 Posted October 9, 2019 #101 Share Posted October 9, 2019 44 minutes ago, the13bats said: 0I think I'm a skeptic as skeptics i believe are open for evidence, scoffers seem to be the ones that no evidence is accepted, i have an "unexplained" file scoffers do not. I think the problem is the skeptic tag should mean exactly that but increasingly the perception is that we are closed minded and just trying to oppress the belief in all these paranormal topics for.. reasons I'm not sure I understand. I guess we're all shills and 'the man' got to us all 44 minutes ago, the13bats said: this thread is at its end with what's provided, i see lights in the sky that weighed with the whole case are likely prosaic to me, others see the mother ship, from what planet, i dont know and others have their own opinion, it likely wont be but could be solved 100% if we had date and time, that alone might be enough, I hate to break it to you but I think everyone else is already gone..haha Ah well, the good news is there's never a shortage of lights in the sky so I'm sure it won't be long until the next one 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stereologist Posted October 9, 2019 #102 Share Posted October 9, 2019 6 hours ago, Chewie1990 said: Long story short - you can't fight closed-mindedness with closed-mindedness. I dont want to come across as insulting and say "don't stoop to their level" but.. yeah, that But we can point out the long list of falsehoods and purposeful deceptions that are posted by close-minded. A typical thing for the close-minded and the outright liars is to post fake photos, lie about the contents of photos, make up stories to support their case, etc. This happens repeatedly. It is fair game to point out when this happens. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chewie1990 Posted October 9, 2019 #103 Share Posted October 9, 2019 10 minutes ago, stereologist said: But we can point out the long list of falsehoods and purposeful deceptions that are posted by close-minded. A typical thing for the close-minded and the outright liars is to post fake photos, lie about the contents of photos, make up stories to support their case, etc. This happens repeatedly. It is fair game to point out when this happens. That is true, but the out and out fakes are a different animal entirely and are usually the first to fall apart under scrutiny. If genuine evidence is presented but misunderstood, I think it's reasonable to discuss the matter as we have in this thread without simply dismissing it since there is actually something tangible to discuss. The nice thing about fake photos is there is usually a tell of some kind that gives the game away, or they are so cheesily done that no sane person would waste any real time on them. In this case absolutely they should be called on it, both by the sceptical and frankly the believers as fakery weakens the case for the paranormal even further. The only awkward cases are personal stories, as unless there are red flags or inconsistencies in the story we can't necessary be sure they're fake at face value. Don't get me wrong, I believe that most if not all are completely made up but it's perhaps unfair to jump to that conclusion every time. Luckily as I mentioned earlier I would only consider these stories to be supplemental evidence anyway and without hard facts the stories will likely fizzle out and be forgotten in no time. It also helps that a lot of these story tellers can't seem to help themselves from wild embellishments or getting tangled up in the details (I'm thinking Rendlesham for example). Then again, people still give credence to Rendlesham, so I guess you can't win either way.. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Earl.Of.Trumps Posted October 9, 2019 #104 Share Posted October 9, 2019 8 hours ago, Chewie1990 said: Ok thought as much, just thought it was important to make sure we know where everyone stands. It's really easy for people to poke holes in others theories without taking the risk of presenting one of their own. I have more respect for people who are transparent than those who are merely here to criticise and refuse to open themselves to the same kinds of scrutiny. And though I typically come down on one side of the debate that goes for both skeptics and believers. Ok, so I'm familiar with the photo and the case but a bit rusty on the details. To save me some research time (and avoid straying too far off topic) I'll just take that evidence at face value rather than trying to disprove a 60+ year old case. But therein lies my first problem. Your evidence of a 2019 case being real is a vaguely similar case from 1952? Even if the original photo was conclusively proven to be aliens (which it wasn't) that's not very stable ground on which to build a case. Chewie, let's be very clear here. No one can prove Aliens. I can speculate. You speculated about flares. Let's make this a two way street, shall we? If I think the objects are UFOs I should never be held to ridicule in the UFO forum here. It Is my opinion that I am entitled to. We do our battles in here but it always boils down to the sceptics throwing insults at people who believe in UFOS, not the other way around. I've looked ahead in the thread and it is clearly happening again and I predict this thread will be locked down. Watch. 8 hours ago, Chewie1990 said: Don't take this the wrong way but if a judgment on a case is to be taken even remotely seriously it should be based on evidence related to the case itself. Otherwise you can say "all alien stories are real because I read about Roswell once". If you want to believe that then fine, just dont be surprised if people treat you like a fool. No offense intended, just some unsolicited but friendly advice.. I am never surprised in here, Chewie, I've become so accustomed to it. But it should never happen that people are throwing insults around like penny candy at people who believe in UFOS when they know they have NO logical reason to say that Alien UFOs cannot be buzzing this planet. ZERO. This is a UFO / ET forum. But try to show support for the subject matter gets you tarred and feathered in here. Ad hominems, insults, accusations. It's endless. Is there proof of Alien visitations? No. But the evidences are so stacked - especially now with revelations by US Navy, that viewing someone a "fool" because they choose to support those ideas shows me for certain, these sceptics operate in complete fear and they leash out at people that won't let them live in their dreamworld, safely tucked away from evidences. Tell me the truth, Chewie, why - oh why, am I a fool for agreeing with the US Navy? Say that you think I'm wrong, Chewie, but don't call me a fool. 8 hours ago, Chewie1990 said: Ok I know I said I wasn't going to get into the old case and I haven't looked to verify the quantity or quality of these witness accounts but my generic response to this would be: - Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable Do you know how many times I have listened to this ******? Please, Chewie, don't talk to me about "other situations" and then say, THEREFOR, these witnesses are unreliable, too! Did you ever consider that maybe this time the people ARE reliable and ARE telling it like it is?? NO, and that is because you are prejudice - predisposed to reject anything UFO by simply making things up about witnesses and photos. My father and about 40 other workers in that power plant saw the UFOs in the 1952 pic. Are you saying ALL witnesses are "unreliable" (keeping it clean) AND the photo is fake? All the while you posit those opinions as fact with no evidence to back you about THIS case despite the fact that Project Bluebook never said the photo was fake. Very interesting. And I'm a fool to believe them all. Father included. Seen it many times before, Chewie. Be above that. 8 hours ago, Chewie1990 said: - These cases often state that dozens or hundreds of witnesses have come forward but we can only take their word for it, these witness statements or the names of witnesses are rarely made available Chewie, I am not demanding you take *anyone's* word for anything. Just don't come at me because I believe my father, I believe all the witnesses that saw those UFOs, and believe the photo is real. That is my prerogative and I need not be slammed in here because of it. Believe what you want. I don't care. Notice, Chewie, when you stated your theory, I didn't call you a fool, I only talked about the actual video in question in this thread and gave my reasons as to why I thought FLARES was not a suitable answer. Do you see what YOU do???? I present my evidence and you say NOTHING about the subject matter but you start lecturing me, hinting around why you think I'm a fool. When are you going to get to the SUBJECT matter, Chewie? See what I mean now? It's the sceptics that do this. 8 hours ago, Chewie1990 said: - Witness testimony after the fact will always be questionable as once an event is in the papers or online there's nothing to stop anyone from claiming to be a witness for attention. This is a bit of an awkward one as you could use this to dismiss pretty much any account (which I don't think is fair) but at the same time it means nothing should be accepted at face value Ok, I'll agree the objects look similar which could hypothetically mean they have the same explanation (be that extra-terrestrial or otherwise). Finally! LOL. Yes, they look similar. No proof of anything BUT... I can interject my opinion and at the same time, DEMAND that I not be held to ridicule by people that disagree. That's all I ask for, not for people to believe my theory. Just the right to post it with *dignity*. 8 hours ago, Chewie1990 said: At a glance I would say the lights in the photo look less likely to be physical objects than our video, but I'm not going to get into that without reading up a little. I do take issue with your assessment of the bright/dim characteristic in the video however. If you look closely the bright periods coincide with the objects being out of focus. Once the image sharpens they appear to dim. In reality you could replicate this effect with pretty much any bright light source and it says a lot less about the objects than the footage. Not a video cam expert but I thought it used auto focus. But whatever. bright-then dim-then bright. Not sure the phone cam would go in and out of focus like that. 8 hours ago, Chewie1990 said: They are both lighting phenomena that are different but not a million miles apart. Without being there it's not really possible to conclude which is more likely. I'd question their credibility more if they stated it was X as a fact, since we can't know for sure. Right - looking at photography by two completely different technologies, different distances, and of course, the 1952 photo, we never see them when they shoot out to sea so we can't get a feel if it is the same. 8 hours ago, Chewie1990 said: That said, what evidence is there its aliens? Even if we trust the eyewitnesses that they saw something, unless it landed and aliens climbed out who's to say what it was?kevin day radar upgrades see ufos There is no proof it is Aliens. But dang - don't UFO sightings get people so upset! Chewie, many times in these forums, UFOs is the subject. Yet most of the time it is the sceptics that start mentioning "aliens" lol. I find that funny. 8 hours ago, Chewie1990 said: Project bluebook was a long time ago. Science has moved on and honestly, UFO evidence really hasn't - the photo you've posted is as compelling as anything I've seen presented but it's in no way conclusive. The photo has been around 70 years. Nobody has debunked it. Anything is possible but really what makes this case a cinch is the fact that many eyewitnesses saw the incident. What are the chances that ALL those people could be wrong while *at the same time* somebody fakes a compelling photo? Yeah, right? LOL Yet nobody in here will give the incicdent a one in a million chance to be real. Go figure! 8 hours ago, Chewie1990 said: To play devil's advocate here, what if the event actually happened AND the photo only shows lens flare? In theory both COULD be true. Obviously the theory of lens flare only addresses the photo and wouldn't work for eyewitnesses. Exactly. Chewie, draw a deep breath. Why oh why would the cameraman run and get his camera if it was "lens flare"? Just saying! 8 hours ago, Chewie1990 said: "You cannot debunk reality, you can only tell a bunch of bunk to hide reality" cuts both ways though, just be careful you don't step over that line. I'm not going to go all in and say alien UFO's are proven to be 100% fake, I just havent seen anything that 100% proves they are real either. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I'm hip. I can have my opinions based on what I have seen and I know I can't prove it. This is not a problem for me, truly. It's kinda like women in the #METOO. They say it, and they can't prove it either. Only they know for sure. I'm in a similar situation. 8 hours ago, Chewie1990 said: If we ever see evidence good enough to prove aliens it will be beyond the work of skeptics to debunk it - that's what makes it good evidence. If little green men turn up on the White House lawn and ray gun the president I promise you nobody will try to pass it off as a trick of the light Whew, now I need to go for a lie down.. Ya, that's a lot of discussing here! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stereologist Posted October 9, 2019 #105 Share Posted October 9, 2019 5 minutes ago, Chewie1990 said: That is true, but the out and out fakes are a different animal entirely and are usually the first to fall apart under scrutiny. If genuine evidence is presented but misunderstood, I think it's reasonable to discuss the matter as we have in this thread without simply dismissing it since there is actually something tangible to discuss. The nice thing about fake photos is there is usually a tell of some kind that gives the game away, or they are so cheesily done that no sane person would waste any real time on them. In this case absolutely they should be called on it, both by the sceptical and frankly the believers as fakery weakens the case for the paranormal even further. The only awkward cases are personal stories, as unless there are red flags or inconsistencies in the story we can't necessary be sure they're fake at face value. Don't get me wrong, I believe that most if not all are completely made up but it's perhaps unfair to jump to that conclusion every time. Luckily as I mentioned earlier I would only consider these stories to be supplemental evidence anyway and without hard facts the stories will likely fizzle out and be forgotten in no time. It also helps that a lot of these story tellers can't seem to help themselves from wild embellishments or getting tangled up in the details (I'm thinking Rendlesham for example). Then again, people still give credence to Rendlesham, so I guess you can't win either way.. I'm not saying that the video is fake. It certainly is a real video, but the presentation certainly raises questions. What is fake, deceptive or outright wrong are statements about what is in the video such as: Being able to determine the distance to the objects Being able to discern details in out of focus single pixel objects. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Earl.Of.Trumps Posted October 9, 2019 #106 Share Posted October 9, 2019 8 hours ago, Chewie1990 said: I agree it's unlikely we will ever change the mind of a true believer but all we can do is present the facts as honestly and civilly as possible and let them speak for themselves. Really, Chewie?! the "facts" - LOL. "honestly and civilly" lololol Chewie, here is the tenor of this thread, all comments I list came for negativists who do NOT talk about the subject matter but the true believers. Quote a person who has a closed mindset to any opinion other than their own true believer true believer story tellers can't seem to help themselves from wild embellishments long list of falsehoods and purposeful deceptions that are posted by close-minded true believer you can't fight closed-mindedness true believers replace facts with close minded blustering arrogance close-minded and the outright liars true believers, angry and attack skeptics right out of the box make up stories I rest my case. Chewie, you seem to be a reasonable person. I hope you don't go over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chewie1990 Posted October 9, 2019 #107 Share Posted October 9, 2019 23 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said: OK wow, calm down buddy, some major overreactions or misunderstandings going on here. I was under the impression we were discussing this in a civil manner and to my knowledge I made no attacks, allegations or anything but fair comments - but please if any mods or other members can point out to me where I have transgressed then I'll be happy to apologise Quote Chewie, let's be very clear here. No one can prove Aliens. True Quote I can speculate. You can. You did. I never said you couldn't. In fact I'm sure @stereologist and @the13bats would be happy to agree that the whole discussion the three of us have been having here stems from me supporting your right to speculate and make outlandish claims without evidence far more than they have any patience for (I know I'm putting words in your mouths, please correct me if I'm wrong) Quote You speculated about flares. I did. I mentioned the pros and the cons. I accepted your right to disagree and thought we'd moved past it. Quote Let's make this a two way street, shall we? If I think the objects are UFOs I should never be held to ridicule in the UFO forum here. It Is my opinion that I am entitled to. Agreed. It is a paranormal forum after all. I, like many others, am here because I have an interest in this stuff. I pointed out that it isn't my job to convince you otherwise and I don't believe that I tried all that hard to do so. I merely pointed out some flaws in your logic, but more on that later.. Quote We do our battles in here but it always boils down to the sceptics throwing insults at people who believe in UFOS, not the other way around. I've looked ahead in the thread and it is clearly happening again and I predict this thread will be locked down. Watch. Please point out an insult that I have thrown at you. Please. I have even said that the fact that some evidence turns out to be doctored ISN'T EVEN PROOF THAT ALIENS DON'T EXIST. I have defended the rights of people to present arguments and stories without being accused of lying and tried to promote healthy discussion and debate rather than hostility which.. yeah, is apparently not a view shared by many others. Again, if the mods feel this is too toxic and think it should be locked down. Please lock it down. Quote I am never surprised in here, Chewie, I've become so accustomed to it. But it should never happen that people are throwing insults around like penny candy at people who believe in UFOS when they know they have NO logical reason to say that Alien UFOs cannot be buzzing this planet. ZERO. Again, please highlight the insults I have thrown around. Please point out where I said aliens aren't buzzing this planet. In fact if you look closely you will see that I have mentioned twice to my recollection that aliens could be here even if the evidence turns out to be wrong Quote This is a UFO / ET forum. But try to show support for the subject matter gets you tarred and feathered in here. Ad hominems, insults, accusations. It's endless. Is there proof of Alien visitations? No. But the evidences are so stacked Again, I haven't closed the door to anything, I have been very careful to name MY FAVOURED THEORY and have shut noone down. The evidence is being provided by the believers, it's not my fault if it doesn't prove what you want it to. If you show me a photo of the sky, don't be upset if I tell you it's blue Quote - especially now with revelations by US Navy, Which revelations by the US Navy? The TTSA revelations? The Navy has confirmed the footage is real sure but they haven't said its aliens. But lets not get into that, this is long enough already.. Quote that viewing someone a "fool" because they choose to support those ideas shows me for certain, these sceptics operate in complete fear and they leash out at people that won't let them live in their dreamworld, safely tucked away from evidences. Tell me the truth, Chewie, why - oh why, am I a fool for agreeing with the US Navy? Say that you think I'm wrong, Chewie, but don't call me a fool. I never called you a fool, and you are way out of context here. I said (paraphrasing) "if you claim incident A is aliens because you think unrelated incident B is aliens (when neither have been proven to be aliens) then don't be surprised if people think you are foolish." You can and have made much better arguments in this thread alone. If for example you are going to shoot down flares because "it's not dark enough" then how is "60 years ago a guy saw some lights" a stronger argument? Quote Do you know how many times I have listened to this ******? Please, Chewie, don't talk to me about "other situations" and then say, THEREFOR, these witnesses are unreliable, too! Did you ever consider that maybe this time the people ARE reliable and ARE telling it like it is?? NO, and that is because you are prejudice - predisposed to reject anything UFO by simply making things up about witnesses and photos. My father and about 40 other workers in that power plant saw the UFOs in the 1952 pic. Are you saying ALL witnesses are "unreliable" (keeping it clean) AND the photo is fake? All the while you posit those opinions as fact with no evidence to back you about THIS case despite the fact that Project Bluebook never said the photo was fake. It is an accepted fact that eyewitness testimony is patchy at best - many a police investigation has been compromised by the issue. A couple can be the victim of a crime and one will say the perp was black and the other will say he was white. Was the car red or blue? And thats after minutes, not decades. Again I also defended your father, I said we shouldn't allege he was lying, I said the photo could be fake with him still having seen something. I have never said all witnesses are unreliable, just that all statements should be taken with a pinch of salt. I even chose not to express an opinion on whether the original photo was fake, I merely highlighted a couple of red flags that jumped out at me, but said I wouldn't comment further without research. I am guessing you just skipped over the thread expecting to be victimised and have just filled in the gaps all by yourself. Quote Very interesting. And I'm a fool to believe them all. Father included. Seen it many times before, Chewie. Be above that. Again, never said that.. I am above that, I don't get my kicks from insulting strangers on the internet Quote Chewie, I am not demanding you take *anyone's* word for anything. Just don't come at me because I believe my father, I believe all the witnesses that saw those UFOs, and believe the photo is real. That is my prerogative and I need not be slammed in here because of it. I didn't say that you did. I didn't come at you or your father.. It is your prerogative and I have slammed noone.. You get the picture by now, right? Quote Believe what you want. I don't care. Notice, Chewie, when you stated your theory, I didn't call you a fool, I only talked about the actual video in question in this thread and gave my reasons as to why I thought FLARES was not a suitable answer. Yes, you did. Reasons that varied from logical and sensible (which I agreed with) to completely irrelevant or downright inaccurate. At which point I screamed and yelled in all caps and.. oh wait no I didn't, I made my case to the contrary and then left it at that. In fact before I asked you what your opinion on this case was I thought the topic was over and the whole thing had been civil and interesting. Quote Do you see what YOU do???? I present my evidence and you say NOTHING about the subject matter but you start lecturing me, hinting around why you think I'm a fool. When are you going to get to the SUBJECT matter, Chewie? See what I mean now? It's the sceptics that do this. When I gave my evidence you ignored most of it and only focused on the points you felt you could refute. We discussed the actual subject matter for page after page before this spat. I have not lectured you anywhere. In fact if anything I've been lecturing skeptics to get off of believers backs and cut them some slack. The closest I've come was advising you to present better evidence than a 60 year old photo to explain a modern case and in fairness that was solely to avoid the kind of stuff you're complaining about. That's the kind of 'evidence' that will get you laughed at by a lot of people, I have quiet enjoyed our debate the last couple of days and didn't want it to go that way. Quote Finally! LOL. Yes, they look similar. No proof of anything BUT... I can interject my opinion and at the same time, DEMAND that I not be held to ridicule by people that disagree. That's all I ask for, not for people to believe my theory. Just the right to post it with *dignity*. Good. You are entitled to your opinion even if I disagree with it, I'm glad we agree on this Quote Not a video cam expert but I thought it used auto focus. But whatever. bright-then dim-then bright. Not sure the phone cam would go in and out of focus like that. Maybe, maybe not. Either way the video cleared jumped in and not of focus. Quote Right - looking at photography by two completely different technologies, different distances, and of course, the 1952 photo, we never see them when they shoot out to sea so we can't get a feel if it is the same. Not sure your point here? If you're saying the comparison is meaningless then I'd tend to agree Quote There is no proof it is Aliens. But dang - don't UFO sightings get people so upset! Chewie, many times in these forums, UFOs is the subject. Yet most of the time it is the sceptics that start mentioning "aliens" lol. I find that funny. I think you will find I asked you your opinion and you said....ALIENS! Hilarious.. Quote The photo has been around 70 years. Nobody has debunked it. Anything is possible but really what makes this case a cinch is the fact that many eyewitnesses saw the incident. What are the chances that ALL those people could be wrong while *at the same time* somebody fakes a compelling photo? Yeah, right? LOL Yet nobody in here will give the incicdent a one in a million chance to be real. Go figure! Not conclusively perhaps, though I haven't looked into it. As I said, I'm not going to express an opinion because I haven't looked into it. Long odds for sure, its lucky I didn't say that's what happened then isn't it? I said it's possible. You shouldn't rule out unlikely things because they seem unlikely at face value.. Quote Exactly. Chewie, draw a deep breath. Why oh why would the cameraman run and get his camera if it was "lens flare"? Just saying! He wouldn't! Obviously! It's more likely that either it is legitimate, it's a misidentification, he took a photo that turned out like that and he ran with it, or he hoaxed the whole thing. Can;t be sure. Quote I'm hip. I can have my opinions based on what I have seen and I know I can't prove it. This is not a problem for me, truly. It's kinda like women in the #METOO. They say it, and they can't prove it either. Only they know for sure. I'm in a similar situation. Nor me, knock yourself out Maybe stay away from the MeToo thing though, that's a serious issue and there's no need to risk upsetting anyone Quote Ya, that's a lot of discussing here! Far too much apparently, but I'll try to mop up your other message in half an hour or so if the thread is still here.. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stereologist Posted October 9, 2019 #108 Share Posted October 9, 2019 There are plenty of efforts to pretend that some video or photo or anecdote contains more than it actually does or that it is of better quality that it is. These efforts can be to pretend that the PG film shows muscle flexing. These efforts can also be seen in many UFO threads. The dots of light are just dots showing no detail and that is what they are. In this case the dots of light are also out of focus. These dots might not even be close together. Only along the axis of view might these dots of light appear to be close together. These might be lots of things: planes balloons flares parachutists We simply cannot tell. The video offers almost no information beyond the number of lights. Simple things that cannot be determined from the video: distance to the lights 3d distribution of the lights size of the objects relative motion between the lights relative motion between observer and the lights shape of the objects the number of objects since not all may be lit up are the objects rotating This is a typical example of an unidentified set of objects. They are unidentified simply because the evidence is poor. Is there any reason to suppose that there is anything mysterious about the lights? No. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chewie1990 Posted October 9, 2019 #109 Share Posted October 9, 2019 Anyway, where were we.. 1 hour ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said: Really, Chewie?! the "facts" - LOL. Yes. Facts. fact noun something that actually exists; reality; truth: something known to exist or to have happened: a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true: something said to be true or supposed to have happened: I guess some of what you said could arguably slot in to point 4 there, but I'm not sure it would hold up in court 1 hour ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said: "honestly and civilly" lololol Well I thought so, certainly a lot more civil than your response has been. And you can't really be dishonest about facts unless you make them up. That's the joy of facts 1 hour ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said: Chewie, here is the tenor of this thread, all comments I list came for negativists who do NOT talk about the subject matter but the true believers. I rest my case. OK, ignore my previous requests for examples, lets see: a person who has a closed mindset to any opinion other than their own - There are many people that fit this description. Both skeptics and believers, I made that point a couple of times. Never said every believer has a closed mindset, in fact if anything I was kinda suggesting bats was maybe coming off as too closed minded. So you're right, I owe an apology. Sorry @the13bats true believer I wasn't aware this one was an insult, and I only said it in response to bats who said it first I believe. Out of interest, what would you prefer I call you? story tellers can't seem to help themselves from wild embellishments "It also helps that a lot of these story tellers can't seem to help themselves from wild embellishments" - Not all, but a lot of. If you're honest with yourself I'm sure you'd agree that there's a lot more bogus stories out there than legitimate ones. Not because aliens aren't real, but because there are just so darn many of them. long list of falsehoods and purposeful deceptions that are posted by close-minded I...don't remember saying anything even remotely like that, I think maybe that was stereologist? you can't fight closed-mindedness "..with closed-mindedness" - was my exact quote, thanks for scoring that point for me there true believers replace facts with close minded blustering arrogance Again, pretty sure that one wasn't me close-minded and the outright liars I don't remember that one but "the outright liars" are a small subset of people within a larger group. There are liars out there within the UFO believer community. If you want to believe every single one of them is legitimate and honest then good for you, but no group of people is entirely without deceptive individuals. Not believers, not skeptics, not police, not doctors. That's the way it is angry and attack skeptics right out of the box Don't believe I ever said that one either... make up stories Are you saying none of these stories are made up? Not a single one? Ever? 1 hour ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said: Chewie, you seem to be a reasonable person. I hope you don't go over. EoT you seemed to be a reasonable person, please go back to how you were 24 hours ago I was actually quite enjoying our discussion until you started on the defensive, even while you were trying to tell me everything I was saying was wrong Now can we either get back on topic or (more likely) all sit in silence until Mr Guy uploads part 2 of his video. It should be any day now... 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rashore Posted October 9, 2019 #110 Share Posted October 9, 2019 On 10/4/2019 at 6:46 AM, UM-Bot said: William Guy had been traveling on a ferry off North Carolina when he spotted a cluster of strange lights. https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/news/331007/ufo-fleet-caught-on-camera-off-us-coast This thread has gotten way off from the OP topic. Which I've quoted it here to remind everyone what the OP was. Bickering has gotten derailing, so thread closed for now. In the meantime, I strongly suggest all members new and old to refresh on the forum rules, found here: https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/guidelines/ 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts