On all of the paranormal cases on UM they will talk to someone who is a skeptic on what they think happen. There been time I think there theories would just big time bs.

The case I think that the skeptic theories are BS is the Rendlesham Forest Incident case. The theory that it was light form a lighthouse that the witnesses would seeing. They never look into it only UFO hunters did and they debunked it .

Any cases you think the skeptic theories are bs

On all of the paranormal cases on UM they will talk to someone who is a skeptic on what they think happen. There been time I think there theories would just big time bs.

The case I think that the skeptic theories are BS is the Rendlesham Forest Incident case. The theory that it was light form a lighthouse that the witnesses would seeing. They never look into it only UFO hunters did and they debunked it .

Any cases you think the skeptic theories are bs

IMO if skeptics can use "logic" whatever that means, to prove their case, then i'll give it credence.

monsterquest episodes are on youtube, and they invite skeptics to attempt to debunk the Patterson-Gimlin film, as well as experts who show why its a real bigfoot being filmed.

skeptics point out that bob heironmous sp? said he wore the custome that is in the film, so skeptics say using logic that's 100% proof it is a hoax. bob heironomous never provided any evidence other than his claim he wore an ape suit, nor provided or explained how the suit was made in 1960s technology.


here is "logic"

https://youtu.be/MKUwdHex1Zs

Skeptics will look at every possible option based on the evidence & the best likelihood. Joe Nickell in one of his books said UM cut a lot of what he said out on a case, putting something of a skeptical viewpoint but preferring to promote the supernatural angle.

Skeptics will look at every possible option based on the evidence & the best likelihood. Joe Nickell in one of his books said UM cut a lot of what he said out on a case, putting something of a skeptical viewpoint but preferring to promote the supernatural angle.

i think skeptics rule out supernatural explanations a priori.

they are committed denialists

People like you rule out logical explanations because they do not fit your pre-conceived notions. Then you call logic "closed minded" even though you are the one being closed minded because you will not accept a logical explanation for events.

People like you rule out logical explanations because they do not fit your pre-conceived notions. Then you call logic "closed minded" even though you are the one being closed minded because you will not accept a logical explanation for events.

I accept logical explanations.

What is a logical explanation for the Westall UFO event witnesses by possibly over 50 individuals?

btw did you see Bill Munn explaining using LOGIC why the Paterson-Gimlin film cannot be a hoax based on 1967 costume technology?

Bill Munn is a highly qualified Hollywood custome and special effects expert. he uses logic to prove that PG film is a real creature, not a human.

I accept logical explanations.

What is a logical explanation for the Westall UFO event witnesses by possibly over 50 individuals?.


Mass hysteria.

Or, as a trip to Google suggests-- government radiation testing. (http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/westall-ufo-incident-was-actually-government-radiation-testing-reports-reveal/story-fni0fit3-1227015591764)

Mass hysteria.

Or, as a trip to Google suggests-- government radiation testing. (http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/westall-ufo-incident-was-actually-government-radiation-testing-reports-reveal/story-fni0fit3-1227015591764)

mass hysteria how convenient for a "skeptic"

i believe those kids saw a UFO;)

Anything Joe Nickell ever said when he took his ignorant head out of his stupid ass long enough to utter what he jokingly calls intelligible speech. :cuckoo

"Extraodinary claims require extraordinary evidence"

If people are claiming that there exists phenomena that defy all natural laws of physics, it is they, not the sceptics, who bear the burden of proving this beyond reasonable doubt.

Which, in centuries of trying, they've never once done

mass hysteria how convenient for a "skeptic"


I'm sure the 25 people who were killed in the Salem Witch Trials would have liked to have seen one "skeptic" amongst them. Nothing paranormal there.... Just a bunch of people WAY too open to suggestion.

i think skeptics rule out supernatural explanations a priori.

they are committed denialists

Well of course some people calling themselves skeptics will, just like many people who believe strongly in the paranormal will ignore the far more realistic rational options & call it ghosts, aliens etc. Everybody is open to putting their bias on things-it is why there is peer review in science.

Anything Joe Nickell ever said when he took his ignorant head out of his stupid ass long enough to utter what he jokingly calls intelligible speech. :cuckoo

Sounds more like a personal thing against him-which I understand because he comes across as being somewhat emotionally flat, condescending etc on television.

However he has actually spent decades traveling around the world investigating all manner of alleged supernatural occurrences in depth & puts forward very logical explanations that are far more likely than the ones given.

Yesterday, I stopped at the post office and parked next to a van that said "Michigan Paranormal Investigators" or something like that. Definitely unexpected. Pretty cool looking van, btw. I normally don't like vans.

Sounds more like a personal thing against him-which I understand because he comes across as being somewhat emotionally flat, condescending etc on television.

However he has actually spent decades traveling around the world investigating all manner of alleged supernatural occurrences in depth & puts forward very logical explanations that are far more likely than the ones given.

The Amazing Randi I don't mind, he at least doesn't come across as a snot who flat rejects any facts inconvenient to his preconceived and biased notions, and claims to have "solved" cases when he has done nothing but demonstrate how events did not happen!

Yesterday, I stopped at the post office and parked next to a van that said "Michigan Paranormal Investigators" or something like that. Definitely unexpected. Pretty cool looking van, btw. I normally don't like vans.

There is a woman round the road from me who has a car with angel healing, auras, psychic readings etc emblazoned all over it-makes me smile every time I walk past it.

The Amazing Randi I don't mind, he at least doesn't come across as a snot who flat rejects any facts inconvenient to his preconceived and biased notions, and claims to have "solved" cases when he has done nothing but demonstrate how events did not happen!

Not sure what Randi you are watching because he is so obnoxious now it is ridiculous-he smugly stated he cannot be fooled by anybody or anything, shouts at anybody who questions his methods or conclusions etc. I would highly recommend the An Honest Liar film that came out last year-you can see he suffers from the same biases he accuses others of.

Well to his satisfaction he has solved cases & if anybody can come along with better explanations then I have no doubt if he agreed with their findings he would change his mind. Don't forget a lot of cases he has exposed as frauds like devices containing liquids for the weeping & bleeding icons.

In other cases he has shown psychics work on nothing other than vague statements that can be retrofitted if any of them turn out to be true, often charge exorbitant fees & claim they had vital information that solved cases when the police say they had nothing to do with it-other than making a nuisance of themselves-sometimes at a financial cost.

There is a woman round the road from me who has a car with angel healing, auras, psychic readings etc emblazoned all over it-makes me smile every time I walk past it.

Speaking about psychic readings, if you wanna see some really wild crap, go to a certain website and check out The Flaccid Ego show. Non-stop laugh riot. Either the guy is real or he damn near reached the Andy Kaufman level of trolling, previously thought to be unattainable by any living person.

The Socorro, New Mexico ufo landing where the skeptics jump on the story in the paper saying it was a college prank. There was no proof of that and that story fell apart

"Extraodinary claims require extraordinary evidence"

If people are claiming that there exists phenomena that defy all natural laws of physics, it is they, not the sceptics, who bear the burden of proving this beyond reasonable doubt.

Which, in centuries of trying, they've never once done

a lot of these witnesses are simply describing what they personally witnessed.

i don't think they are trying to "prove" anything.

their honesty is enough for me.

Eyewitness memory is increasingly unreliable (http://www.visualexpert.com/Resources/eyewitnessmemory.html).

Just saying.

a lot of these witnesses are simply describing what they personally witnessed.

i don't think they are trying to "prove" anything.

their honesty is enough for me.

Great, but it doesn't make it factual. As stated witness testimony is hugely unreliable-cops regularly get multiple witness statements from people at the scene of a crime that don't tally with each other. If your witnesses are predisposed to believe in something already that makes it highly likely they will interpret things to fit that belief.

Great, but it doesn't make it factual. As stated witness testimony is hugely unreliable-cops regularly get multiple witness statements from people at the scene of a crime that don't tally with each other. If your witnesses are predisposed to believe in something already that makes it highly likely they will interpret things to fit that belief.

it may not be "factual" but
1- a witness is reporting it and
2- we can decide if we find it credible

peterson and gimlin said they saw bigfoot and filmed it and say it is not a hoax.

bill munn is a custome designer and special fx and says it is not a hoax. it is not a human in a custom. he explains why.

i dont put any credence in skeptical "debunking" like paterson was trying to get money or bob herineomous was the guy in the suit.

i think skeptics, if they can try to claim roger peterson was trying to make money, therefore the film is "debunked" pure bs.

bill munn offers facts and logic

It is impossible to say in that case-it is possible it is genuine footage of an unknown species, it is possible that it was a hoax done for attention &/or financial gain-Gimlin is still making money off the speaking circuit nearly 50 years on. There is certainly enough credibility issue with those involved to cast a lot of doubt on it being genuine.

http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4375

Costume designers/SFX experts like any other expert witness can give their opinion & just like Munn believes it isn't a human another SFX expert like Stan Winston believes it is. You constantly get experts disagreeing about things in criminal cases.

As you say people will make their own minds up-as a kid I believed this was a genuine ape creature, just like I believed in ghosts, aliens, polts etc & when I got older & started reading critical thinking books & developed the ability to weigh up all the evidence & reach a conclusion based on science & the frailties of humans I came not to believe any of it as being supernatural.

Not sure what Randi you are watching because he is so obnoxious now it is ridiculous-he smugly stated he cannot be fooled by anybody or anything, shouts at anybody who questions his methods or conclusions etc. I would highly recommend the An Honest Liar film that came out last year-you can see he suffers from the same biases he accuses others of.

It may well be that they are both arrogant arseholes. I am not against skeptics per se--for instance, the guy who debunked the angel photos seemed all right and as if he knew what he was talking about--but Nickell pisses me off with his know-it-all attitude, his obviously false claims to have "replicated" and therefore "solved" phenomena such as human combustion and the Shroud of Turin after spending brief amounts of time and effort producing crude copies with only surface resemblances--things lay observers, let alone experts, could easily distinguish from the real thing and dismiss--and his assertion that "there are no haunted places, only haunted people." Hellllooooooo, then how come credible witnesses who don't see things anywhere else, some of whom formerly didn't even believe in such things, (well, some who still don't such as the people with the radiation burns in the UFO case) have experienced them at certain locations? And I mean feeling as well as hearing and seeing? I would like to just chain him up in some haunted asylum and leave him to the mercy of the entities! These people are like the Dr. Oz of the paranormal--a stopped clock may be right twice a day, but for the most part complete useless quacks. It pisses me off to see people making a living by being jerks. If they have solved something, bravo to them. Doesn't Randi run an interesting museum or something? If skeptics must appear on such programs, is nothing better available?

Well he is hardly the only person who has replicated SHC & come up with reasons as to why a fire started-for instance a woman dosing herself up on sleeping pills & deciding to smoke before passing out, or a retired fireman with a history of smoking, with breathing problems has his oxygen machine running with matches on top of it & no fire that could be lit in the room. Pointing out the obvious problems with the SOT & its testing does not make him the devil either.

How do you define a credible witness? Much is made in the paranormal community of the status of the people seeing things as if that somehow makes it fact, but airline pilots & law enforcement officers have mistaken planets & other natural things for UFO'S. Also since the general opinion now is some people are more predisposed to see these things than others due to personal beliefs &/or brain patterns etc it really isn't reliable.

Do you mean Cash/Landrum? Highly dubious case as ever.

http://badufos.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/between-beer-joint-and-some-kind-of.html

Why would you need to chain him up? He goes to these places willingly & never experiences anything, which rather supports his case that people see & experience what they expect to & some are doing it to make money because they own 'haunted places' & can market it as such.

it may not be "factual" but
1- a witness is reporting it and
2- we can decide if we find it credible

Wow. I'm sure Kirk Bloodsworth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirk_Bloodsworth) would have something to say about that.

Cliff notes version: He was convicted of rape and murder of a nine-year old girl. FIVE eyewitnesses placed him with the victim. FIVE.

He didn't do it. DNA exonerated him, even though FIVE people said he was the killer.

If eyewitness accounts are so trustworthy, explain how THAT miscarriage of justice happened.

He cannot & thank goodness we have moved on from the nonsense of people being convicted based on rubbish like eye witness statements, line-ups, polygraphs etc rather than physical evidence.

Sylvia Browne....that "ALIENS!" guy from the History Channel....etc. Some of their theories are (were in Browne's case) BS.

How do you define a credible witness? Much is made in the paranormal community of the status of the people seeing things as if that somehow makes it fact, but airline pilots & law enforcement officers have mistaken planets & other natural things for UFO'S. Also since the general opinion now is some people are more predisposed to see these things than others due to personal beliefs &/or brain patterns etc it really isn't reliable.

Do you mean Cash/Landrum? Highly dubious case as ever.

http://badufos.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/between-beer-joint-and-some-kind-of.html


I know, slightly OT, but thanks for that link. Never knew that stuff about the Cash/Landrum case. Learning is awesome!:rock:

I know, slightly OT, but thanks for that link. Never knew that stuff about the Cash/Landrum case. Learning is awesome!:rock:

Neither did I. It certainly was a strange one! :ufo:

Yep, it certainly paints a different picture to the one portrayed on on UM & in the UFO community in general for the last 30 plus years of two helpless women fighting against an evil military & government.

It actually shows a military that were interested but the witnesses couldn't provide the location & aligned themselves with a highly suspect lawyer to file a 20 million dollar lawsuit & a UFO proponent who seems to have made stuff up & together they refused to release medical records to be examined.

mass hysteria how convenient for a "skeptic"

i believe those kids saw a UFO;)


I believe those kids did see an Unidentified Flying Object but it wasn't from another planet.

I accept logical explanations.

What is a logical explanation for the Westall UFO event witnesses by possibly over 50 individuals?

http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4208

Over the past two centuries there have been many supposed supernatural or paranormal events and eventually all are debunked or found to have few facts and believers mainly just turn their attentions to more recent stories and claim they always disbelieved the older stories just like people did with Sylvia Browne and spirit photography, personally I can't think of any sceptic theories that were BS the sceptic is supposed the question things they may not have all the answers but I find them more open minded than the same people that claim to be open minded but aren't.