"Arcturian 1" <arcturian1@aol.com> wrote:

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"

[snip]

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?

Researcher's psychotronic thing may, privately, strike me as
bullshit too but I won't say so until I have seen his ideas tested.
To do otherwise would be quite the opposite of scepticism.

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.

We HAVE enquired. Publicly AND privately, it sounds like bullshit. So
far, you've done nothing to dispel that notion.

Unless I've missed something (in which case please reproduce it)
i have seen no proper enquiries, just prejudiced denials.

In any case it is for researcher himself to dispel your notions, if
he can - I'm as keen to read his explanations as you are.

But, oops! you are not interested in reading his explanations
are you?

--
altheim