So chaps
hey buddy!
eek
where is mr a?
/pops champagne/swats flies/home sweet home
So chaps
Who abducted the aliens ????
Now, here is your problem.
When UFOlogists listen to people's claims, they write it all down and say 'thankyou'. UFOlogists show no discernment.
Now, when I hear a UFOlogist debunking another UFOlogist, you may get the field losing the 'Pseudo' prefix. Until then, ......
Real scientists verify each other's work, and when people make a claim that isn't true the paper gets critiqued and rejected.
porf's gone so........
Its a good thing those alien thought reading beams only access your brain through the top of your head....I guess the aliens don't try to scan through your face.
Ufology depends mostly on observation, as do other sciences, notably psychology.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_of_Scientific_Exploration
JSE, Journal of Scientific Exploration. A peer-reviewed journal, as they pat themselves on the back...
And—as I learnt recently—to stop a thread about ETs and abductions is to post an actual and marvelous albeit impractical bibelot about it and watch the interested parties, skeptic and sympathizers alike, squirm where the fun don't shine. Boring lot.
Everyone is always deceived or deceiving, then? And the skeptical non-observers are ALWAYS all-seeing and truthful???Because I've never seen any recorded observation that had merit.
We get served up blobs of light without context
And the Skeptical lnquirer, mouthpiece of CSICOP, is an open-minded, unbiased journal with no motives to debunk or disbelieve? Well, that's what they tell people, and perhaps their claim of unbiased investigation is the only anecdotal evidence you'd ever consider as valid?At least, for balance that article includes the criticism by the editor of 'The Skeptical Enquirer', and so it should
the JSE hardly seems scientific considering it's subject matter, including reincarnation and astrology.
Is that the best you can offer as a 'peer reviewed' publication?
Of actual UFOs? Because I've never seen any recorded observation that had merit. We get served up blobs of light without context, we get told people were abducted in their sleep. But despite the volume of reports, the hard data is elusive. Why is that, do you think?
Let me just add this thought that I neglected to in the previous post:
Who are you, one man, to decide the merit of every single case?
And judging by your blobs statement and your apparent lack of appropriate knowledge on the subject of ufos, perhaps you're not qualified to judge the merits of most ufo cases.
Or reporting mere "blobs of light"? You really are mischaracterizing things here, like many skeptics often do. I can think of several reports that have nothing to do with vague "blobs of light".