My apologies, Greg-it won’t happen again.

Please be considerate of each other on our forums.

No you aren’t, as you clearly go on to demonstrate (I told you not to talk about things you know nothing about)…

“But no-one here is submitting a paper to Nature or defending their disertation-this is public discourse”

That is a logical fallacy since you are taking my statement out-of-context. I was repeating some peer review of Dark Matter and Dark Energy, which is perfectly appropriate in any setting, including this forum.

“I submit…”

Since this forum isn’t Nature, why should I be obligated to respond to any of your childish taunts? Besides, you actually have (had) nothing to submit. Next time, if you ever come up with a legitimate criticism, offer that instead. All you have proved so far is that you are good at blind faith accusations, but poor at defending your accusations with logic and reason. But enough of this tit-for-tat, it is time to change the subject from THE_SAGE back to the topic of this thread again…

I claimed the UFO community has alienated themselves from the truth because they avoid peer review at all costs. That is called a “truism” because it is so obvious — there are no peer reviewed UFO journals, books, or venues. All you have to do to prove me wrong, is just show us one. One is all it will take. Are you up to the challenge or would you rather take the coward’s way out and attack ME instead of my ARGUMENT again? In other words, are you going to bark all day little doggy, or are you going to bite?

Fictional storytales have no effect on reality. Pretending or imagining or entertaining the thought that something is real will not make it real.That’s because imagination is limitless and reality is not.

Sage, your last inference is absurd.
My point was that you provide nothing
beyond that source to back your assertions. Fifteen years ago, String
theory was being touted as the route
to the TOE. That, as I expect you keep
up with the literature, is no longer the
case. You can continue to insult my intelligence and character until the
heat death of the universe, and the intelligence and character of others
fascinated by anomalous phenomena, and
it really won’t bother me. You don’t have a proof, you just have a dogma.

I highly recommend it.

In that movie, Geraldine Chaplin plays the part of a psychic, and in a scene she says “The point is not about seeing in order to believe, it’s about believing in order to see.”

That statement both attracts and repels me at the same time, because it seems awfully pertinent to the Fortean lore, but at the same time it implicates such a massive blow to the idea of consensus reality.

It’s almost as a key that free us from our prison, but are we really sure that we want to escape?

On the contrary, it is a logical idea. “I love chocolate” is a non-rational truth and it makes perfect sense. Unfortunately for your argument, there non-rational truths are something that only exists in your mind and not outside of your mind.

I inflated a rubber raft the other day and it didn’t explode.

“Tarring the whole ‘UFO Community’ with the same brush isn’t science”

It is called objective observation.

“‘UFOlogists have earned a reputation…’ isn’t the language of science, its the language of a gossip colummist”

And you know that because you read a lot of gossip I take it? Since what I claimed was not a lie, you cannot call it a lie. Since you cannot claim I am lying, you call me a gossip columnist. Of course, since what I am discussion, by definition, is not called gossip, you clearly do not know. Why don’t you talk about something you do know?

“I can’t help but notice that while you seem to be suggesting the notion of Dark Matter and Dark energy is flawed, you offer nothing in the way of a solution or explanation”

I can’t help but notice you are not familiar with the scientific concept of peer review, which is all about finding flaws without having to offer alternative explanations. For any theory to be proven false, all that is required is to find one single flaw with it. Just because you cannot offer an alternate explanation does not mean that the flaw should still be accepted.

“And no sources apart from a fifteen year old article from Scientific American”

According to your “logic” here, Einstein wrote his paper on relativity more than 15 years ago, there Einstein is incorrect and wrong. Clearly, logic is not one of your strong points.