Quote:
Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald
Oh no, I get the skepticism. I'm a skeptic. I am very much a "prove it" guy, and my posting history is more than enough proof of that. I'm considered a curmudgeon because I'm skeptical of everything. What I am seeing here is more cynicism and some denialism. It's hard to take much of this subject forward because it is considered taboo in many circles, which has always made me scratch my head. If you won't explore all ideas and have to build walls around ideas, are you really examining all possibilities and maintaining that open mind?
No, it's about the self-proclaimed skeptics looking down the nose of anything they don't want to consider and then dismissing it. Why would I present information that you've already said is not worthy of review? That's the game skeptics play. Just look at your own behaviors here. List some researchers, then attack their work and credibility. Try to focus on the findings, then attack the lack of complete lab reports. Counter than summaries are acceptable, then attack the labs themselves. Los Alamos was not a good enough lab to review physical evidence. Los ####ing Alamos! That sort of said everything right there. There was never going to be anything to satisfy you at that point. So please save your judgmental bull####, as you're one of those people that has gone beyond skepticism and is well into cynicism. You're a true disbeliever and you wear the badge with honor.
|
Bailey - People with memories of UFOs abductions means the event occurred
Motte -People with motors of UFO abductions have memories that the event occurred
Bailey - I have peer reviewed studies of physical evidence
Motte - here’s a data dump of peer reviewed research of many different things that aren’t physical evidence and links to people who have done everything they can not to have evidence peer reviewed. Skeptics won’t believe it anyway so I won’t produce the studies I have.
Come out of your castle.