Skeptic theories that are BS in paranormal cases

[ctgrumpybear]

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

[neognosis]

Originally Posted by ctgrumpybear

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"

[James T]

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.

[neognosis]

Originally Posted by James T

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

[cordwainer1453]

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.

[neognosis]

Originally Posted by cordwainer1453

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.

[LooksLikeCRicci]

Originally Posted by neognosis

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.

[neognosis]

Originally Posted by LooksLikeCRicci

Mass hysteria.

Or, as a trip to Google suggests-- government radiation testing.

mass hysteria how convenient for a "skeptic"

i believe those kids saw a UFO

[Cori aka ChrisSCrush]

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.

[isotope]

"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

[LooksLikeCRicci]

Originally Posted by neognosis

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.

[James T]

Originally Posted by neognosis

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.

[James T]

Originally Posted by Cori aka ChrisSCrush

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.

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.

[wiseguy182]

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.

[Cori aka ChrisSCrush]

Originally Posted by James T

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!