altheim wrote:

"Michael Davis" <mdavis19@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

altheim wrote:

"Michael Davis" <mdavis19@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

researcher wrote:

A Definition of "UFO Skeptic"

Someone that is fundamentally in denial and has a mind closed like a

steel

trap.

Alternate definition:
Someone that is being used by the Government or other special interest

group

to deliberately lie about UFOs or make up fake UFO stories to help cover

up

the truth.

Any Comments on this?

Yes, my comment is that you are delusional.

Whatever you may think of researcher on a personal level,

I try not to.

his definition of a Skeptic is sound.

If you think so, then you are delusional too.

The true definition of a UFO skeptic is merly someone who listens to all
the baseless ravings flowing out of the UFO cult and then asks "what
evidence do you have to back up any of that?" Then when no real evidence
is presented, the skeptic quite correctly writes off the ravings as the
utter BS they are. HTH.

No. That is the definition of a disbeliever.

No, it is the definition of a rational person. You see, for things that
are real, no belief is required. You can prove they are real. However,
when someone appeals to belief in a debate, it is a clear sign that they
have nothing real to offer to back up their claims, and are just
shoveling BS. A rational person can see that a mile away. Why can't you?

How do you know I can't?

Because you are defending his idiocy.

Researcher's psychotronic thing may, privately, strike me as
bullshit too but I won't say so until I have seen his ideas tested.

Why wait? If you were to accidentally drop your gum into what looks like a big steaming pile of bullshit, would you reach down, grab it and pop it back into your mouth because you weren't absolutely certain it had been shown to be bullshit? The ability to detect bullshit is a very handy thing to have.

To do otherwise would be quite the opposite of scepticism.

Wrong. You obviously have no clue what the definition of skepticism is. A real skeptic, upon seeing something that strongly resembles bullshit, will be skeptical of any claim that it is anything other than bullshit unless a large body of supporting evidence is provided to back up that claim.

Far better I should have thought would be to inquire how he
explains the nature of aural energy in terms of physics and
how it can be utilised for propulsion.

What aural energy? He has clearly put the cart before the horse. *First* he needs to prove that UFOs are anything out of the ordinary. *Then* he needs to prove they are some sort of spacecraft. *Then* he needs to prove some sort of "aural energy" is involved with them. *Only then* can he try to explain this alleged "aural energy" in terms of physics and speculate about propulsion. He started at step four without first doing steps one, two and three. That puts him squarely in fantasy land.

To dismiss them summarily
and without question

I dismiss him because he has no foundation to his arguments. He is engaging in mental masterbation, not science.

makes me wonder why you are in a debating
forum.

This isn't a debating forum. This is Usenet. It is an entertainment forum. I find debunking UFO kooks to be entertaining. HTH.

--
The Evil Michael Davis(tm)
http://www.mdpub.com/scopeworks/
http://skepticult.org Member #264-70198-536
Member #33 1/3 of The "I Have Been Killfiled By Tommy" Club

"There's a sucker born every minute" - David Hannum (often erroneously attributed to P. T. Barnum)