Jan 30 2009
|
|
UFOs & “Paranormal”
The new issue of Britain’s Paranormal magazine is - I’m very pleased to say - absolutely packed with features that should be of interest to readers of UFOMystic. First, there is an article from well-known author Janet Bord titled Monstrous Man-Birds, and which covers such potentially UFO-connected beasties as Mothman. Then, there’s Jon Downes dissecting the Owlman of England. Karl Shuker poses the intriguing question: “Are UFOs living creatures - weird, luminous things drifting in the upper atmosphere?” And, there’s a one-page rant from me explaining why I loathe those skeptical types who never actually get out into the field - but who prefer instead to pontificate from the comfort of their office or home on why they are so sure that UFOs, aliens, Bigfoot, etc, do not exist. Enjoy!
This entry was posted
on Friday, January 30th, 2009 at 6:51 am and is filed under Alien Encounters, Anomalous Phenomena, Breaking News, Close Encounters, Evidence, Media Appearances, Occult/Esoteric, Strange Creatures, The Redfern Files, UFO Sightings, UFOlogists, UFOlogy. You can follow responses via RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response or trackback from your site.
del.icio.us Digg Reddit BlinkList Google Ma.gnolia StumbleUpon Technorati Yahoo! Help
- Related News Stories:
- The Paranormal Symposium »
- Spielberg To Launch Online Paranormal Community »
- Paranormal Panel Show On Track »
- Holland & Who »
- Anomalist UFOs »
- UFOs & “Paranormal” »
- UFOs, The Paranormal, and Multi-Dimensions »
- UFO Conference In Angel Fire, New Mexico »
- A Paranormal Interview »
- Dark 30: UFOs and More »
|
January 30th, 2009 at 11:23 am
I got Janet Bord’s book on fairies a while back. She’s a great writer.
January 30th, 2009 at 2:08 pm
“There’s a one-page rant from me explaining why I loathe those skeptical types who never actually get out into the field - but who prefer instead to pontificate from the comfort of their office or home on why they are so sure that UFOs, aliens, Bigfoot, etc, do not exist”
This is funny! Why is it that all kinds of believers get out into the field, yet everyone of them come home empty handed, yet they still insist on believing anyway? Who is demonstrating more common logical sense here — the believers who get out into the field and return empty handed yet refuse to quit believing, or the skeptics waiting back at home for the believers to return with something other than a complete vacuum of evidence? Just because someone gets out into a field does not mean they know any more or less than someone who does not get out into a field. That is a logical fallacy. What demonstrates someone knows more are the verifiable facts they can cite.
January 30th, 2009 at 2:40 pm
“Why is it that all kinds of believers get out into the field, yet everyone of them come home empty handed”
The fact you would say this leads me to believe your knowledge of the subject is extremely limited. Physical evidence has been collected (ever heard of Ted Phillips). Is it, and all the eyewitness testimony, enough to satisfy the fundamentalist skeptics? Of course not. But I think anyone who approaches the subject with a open mind would think that the totality of the evidence suggests it is very likely something is going on. Obviously you don’t, and I’m fairly certain any time I spend trying to convince you otherwise will just be time wasted.
February 3rd, 2009 at 11:11 am
“The fact you would say this leads me to believe your knowledge of the subject is extremely limited”
And what does it matter what you believe?
“Physical evidence has been collected (ever heard of Ted Phillips)”
Show me then. I predict you will fail because all you have as evidence of this alleged physical evidence are storytales of alleged evidence.
“But I think anyone who approaches the subject with a open mind would think that the totality of the evidence suggests it is very likely something is going on”
Of course they would but the problem is that there is no evidence.
“Obviously you don’t”
Because obviously you and I know there is no evidence to do any “convincing” with.
“I’m fairly certain any time I spend trying to convince you otherwise will just be time wasted”
Sounds like you have already wasted your time already. The fact is, I am very easy to convince. All you have to do is show me some evidence. Note I said “show” — not tell, but show. You can sit there and quote all your most favorite UFO evidence fairytales all day long, but I’m only interested in facts, not fairytales, yet fairytales is all you seem to have. I am not so easily persuaded by poorly told and contradictory fairytales as you seem to be so I would suggest a different approach, say a more scientific and logical one for example.