Post by bonehead on May 20, 2018 17:20:27 GMT
It seems that UFOlogical online presence has turned into a cesspool of self-referential drivel. Despite idle promises from the likes of Tom DeLonge, nothing new has come down the pike. Instead we have stuff like Rich Reynold's continuing to dig deeply subjective epistemological holes from which no light can escape:
ahem..
Or you have the same kind of ignorant "skepticism" pioneered by the likes of Phillip Klass and Donald Menzel....
www.theufochronicles.com/2018/05/an-extraterrestrial-flying-disk-crashed-near-Roswell.html
C'mon folks, if you are going to get critical about a case, at least see that your hypothesizing takes the witness testimony into account. Gross glosses over the testimony of Jesse Marcel as if he had nothing of value to say about what happened to him and what he claimed to have seen. To paraphrase Marcel, "I don't know what I saw, but it was not a weather balloon". Simply attaching a balloon train to some other "secret" program does nothing to address that fact that, secret or not, we are still talking about neoprene weather balloons! I guess the implication is that Marcel was just not smart enough to know a rubber balloon when he saw one. I find that implication harder to swallow than the idea that Marcel saw something that he could not identify.
I guess nobody gives a crap anymore - and everybody has latched onto their own pet-theories about what it all means. But if you are going to discuss a case, you must go back to the original testimony of those who were there (or, perhaps, claimed to be there). If your newly crafted debunkery does not conform to what the witnesses claimed to see, then it has no validity! It is a conjecture based on nothing more than fuzzy thinking.
All the research in the world, pro or con, has no value if it distorts or ignores the essential facts of a case. There is one indisputable reason for this: the witness was there. Armchair "experts" making bold proclamations from their easy-chairs were not! And no amount of righteous proselytizing or ignorant theories based on whatever irrelevant research will change that.
Theories that fail to consider all the facts testified by witnesses are not serious endeavors at anything. Instead, they are ill considered discursive attempts to muddy the waters. As far as i'm concerned, this is the only Muddy Waters I am interested in:
It just seems that UFOlogy's mojo ain't working on me anymore.......
Just sayin'
Bonehead
ahem..
Or you have the same kind of ignorant "skepticism" pioneered by the likes of Phillip Klass and Donald Menzel....
www.theufochronicles.com/2018/05/an-extraterrestrial-flying-disk-crashed-near-Roswell.html
C'mon folks, if you are going to get critical about a case, at least see that your hypothesizing takes the witness testimony into account. Gross glosses over the testimony of Jesse Marcel as if he had nothing of value to say about what happened to him and what he claimed to have seen. To paraphrase Marcel, "I don't know what I saw, but it was not a weather balloon". Simply attaching a balloon train to some other "secret" program does nothing to address that fact that, secret or not, we are still talking about neoprene weather balloons! I guess the implication is that Marcel was just not smart enough to know a rubber balloon when he saw one. I find that implication harder to swallow than the idea that Marcel saw something that he could not identify.
I guess nobody gives a crap anymore - and everybody has latched onto their own pet-theories about what it all means. But if you are going to discuss a case, you must go back to the original testimony of those who were there (or, perhaps, claimed to be there). If your newly crafted debunkery does not conform to what the witnesses claimed to see, then it has no validity! It is a conjecture based on nothing more than fuzzy thinking.
All the research in the world, pro or con, has no value if it distorts or ignores the essential facts of a case. There is one indisputable reason for this: the witness was there. Armchair "experts" making bold proclamations from their easy-chairs were not! And no amount of righteous proselytizing or ignorant theories based on whatever irrelevant research will change that.
Theories that fail to consider all the facts testified by witnesses are not serious endeavors at anything. Instead, they are ill considered discursive attempts to muddy the waters. As far as i'm concerned, this is the only Muddy Waters I am interested in:
It just seems that UFOlogy's mojo ain't working on me anymore.......
Just sayin'
Bonehead