alien hybridization program
ThePuppetMaster
up my nose when they claim that there is no evidence to support the ET /
human hybridization program, when in fact there is ample.
The best example of evidence to my knowledge is the 900 year old skull,
found in Mexico some seventy years ago. Even as a child the skull's brain
capacity was some 200cc larger than a normal human adults. The eye sockets
are much wider and shallower than you would expect to see in a human and the
neck attachment is much smaller. All consistent with a Grey / human hybrid.
You can see the photos, forensic rendering and scientific analysis here.
http://www.starchildproject.com/page-01.html
Final proof will be the complete DNA analysis which hopefully will arrive
some time in the new year.
My money says Sir Arthur was right (again).
Seasons greetings,
ThePuppetMaster
Pete Charest
news:a0ghbi$uvl$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
> You can see the photos, forensic rendering and scientific analysis
here.
>
> http://www.starbullshitproject.com/page-01.html
Fucking spamming 'tard.
---
Pete Charest
Truth Terrorist©
Risen from the Dead®
If you're stupid, you won't find me funny.
Michael Davis
> The lack of knowledge displayed by debunkers is quite outstanding. It gets
> up my nose when they claim that there is no evidence to support the ET /
> human hybridization program, when in fact there is ample.
Actually, there is zero evidence that there have ever even been any aliens
visiting Earth, let alone carrying out any sort of X-Files type hybridization
nonsense.
> The best example of evidence to my knowledge is the 900 year old skull,
> found in Mexico some seventy years ago. Even as a child the skull's brain
> capacity was some 200cc larger than a normal human adults. The eye sockets
> are much wider and shallower than you would expect to see in a human and the
> neck attachment is much smaller. All consistent with a Grey / human hybrid.
Snarf! Damn you're stupid. A deformed skull does not equal evidence of an alien
hybridization program. Do a web search and see all the different ways human
skulls can be deformed by disease or even by intentionally shaping the soft
skulls of infants into strange forms as some cultures did.
> You can see the photos, forensic rendering and scientific analysis here.
Correction: You will see a lot of woo-woo nonsense there.
> http://www.starchildproject.com/page-01.html
>
> Final proof will be the complete DNA analysis which hopefully will arrive
> some time in the new year.
Yeah, right, any day now. I predict we will never see the results of these
alleged DNA tests. Lots of idiots like you will make all sorts of claims, but no
independently verifiable results will ever be forthcoming.
> My money says Sir Arthur was right (again).
Again? You really are stupid.
--
The Evil Michael Davis™
Ruler For Life of AAR
http://mdavis19.tripod.com
http://skepticult.org Member #264-70198-536
Flaggy random killfile member #33 1/3
"Man is a credulous animal, and must believe something; in the absence of good
grounds for belief, he will be satisfied with bad ones." - Bertrand Russell
George Black
We shant hold our collective breaths
> My money says Sir Arthur was right (again).
Your money talks. it says goodbye!
Lil G
wrote:
[..]
>Again? You really are stupid.
Um, do you realize how stupid you look when you're debunking aliens, and
have a web page dedicated to one?
James J. Lippard
(DNA testing found it to be a human male, see
http://www.starchildproject.com/dna-01.html).
You might as well claim that the Ripley's Believe It or Not photo of
the Asian with a horn growing out of the back of his head is evidence
of a unicorn-human hybrid.
--
Jim Lippard lippard...@discord.org http://www.discord.org/
GPG Key ID: 0xF8D42CFE
Art's Good Twin
> The lack of knowledge displayed by debunkers is quite outstanding. It gets
> up my nose when they claim that there is no evidence to support the ET /
> human hybridization program, when in fact there is ample.
>
> The best example of evidence to my knowledge is the 900 year old skull,
> found in Mexico some seventy years ago.
Okay. Any other examples? Any one piece of bone can be an anomaly. They occur
all the time in nature. Anything more concrete? Nah. Go back to sleep now.
Michael Davis
I have no idea what you are talking about, but that's normal.
--
The Evil Michael Davis™
Ruler For Life of AAR
http://mdavis19.tripod.com
http://skepticult.org Member #264-70198-536
Flaggy random killfile member #33 1/3
"Man's most valuable trait is a judicious sense of what not to believe." -
Euripides
ThePuppetMaster
> The clueless kook calling itself ThePuppetMaster wrote:
>
> > The lack of knowledge displayed by debunkers is quite outstanding. It gets
> > up my nose when they claim that there is no evidence to support the ET /
> > human hybridization program, when in fact there is ample.
>
> Actually, there is zero evidence that there have ever even been any aliens
> visiting Earth, let alone carrying out any sort of X-Files type hybridization
> nonsense.
What rubbish. There is lots of evidence. Testimony is evidence,
photographs are evidence, video recordings are evidence. It may be
true to say that there isnt any conclusive evidence available at this
time, but to say that there is no evidence is idiotic.
>
> > The best example of evidence to my knowledge is the 900 year old skull,
> > found in Mexico some seventy years ago. Even as a child the skull's brain
> > capacity was some 200cc larger than a normal human adults. The eye sockets
> > are much wider and shallower than you would expect to see in a human and the
> > neck attachment is much smaller. All consistent with a Grey / human hybrid.
>
> Snarf! Damn you're stupid. A deformed skull does not equal evidence of an alien
> hybridization program. Do a web search and see all the different ways human
> skulls can be deformed by disease or even by intentionally shaping the soft
> skulls of infants into strange forms as some cultures did.
Shows how much you know, numbnut. There is evidence that the
deformations were not caused by intentional shaping (included in the
scientific analysis).
You also demonstrate dual standards. As evidence of evolution you hold
up those Australopithecus bones found in Afirca. Alien hybrid bones
are dismissed as a butt ugly kid. You accept one and ignore the other?
>
> > You can see the photos, forensic rendering and scientific analysis here.
>
> Correction: You will see a lot of woo-woo nonsense there.
>
> > http://www.starchildproject.com/page-01.html
> >
> > Final proof will be the complete DNA analysis which hopefully will arrive
> > some time in the new year.
>
> Yeah, right, any day now. I predict we will never see the results of these
> alleged DNA tests. Lots of idiots like you will make all sorts of claims, but no
> independently verifiable results will ever be forthcoming.
Pah! You either cant read or read only what you want to. The latest
update on the site was a notice about a planned DNA analysis.
>
> > My money says Sir Arthur was right (again).
>
> Again? You really are stupid.
And you are a fat bastard.
>
> --
> The Evil Michael Davis™
> Ruler For Life of AAR
> http://mdavis19.tripod.com
> http://skepticult.org Member #264-70198-536
> Flaggy random killfile member #33 1/3
>
> "Man is a credulous animal, and must believe something; in the absence of good
> grounds for belief, he will be satisfied with bad ones." - Bertrand Russell
Best regards,
ThePuppetMaster
ThePuppetMaster
> The site you cite seems to indicate that it is an anomalous human skull
> (DNA testing found it to be a human male, see
> http://www.starchildproject.com/dna-01.html).
You didnt read, or chose to ignore the "Y" chromosome was not included
in the tests. As Lloyd Pye says
"If everything lines up as it should, then the Starchild is entirely
human. Period. If they don’t line up equally, then it is
something other than human. Period."
>
> You might as well claim that the Ripley's Believe It or Not photo of
> the Asian with a horn growing out of the back of his head is evidence
> of a unicorn-human hybrid.
You may as well dismiss dinosaur bones as deformed elephants.
>
> In article <a0ghbi$uvl$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>, ThePuppetMaster wrote:
> > The lack of knowledge displayed by debunkers is quite outstanding. It gets
> > up my nose when they claim that there is no evidence to support the ET /
> > human hybridization program, when in fact there is ample.
> >
> > The best example of evidence to my knowledge is the 900 year old skull,
> > found in Mexico some seventy years ago. Even as a child the skull's brain
> > capacity was some 200cc larger than a normal human adults. The eye sockets
> > are much wider and shallower than you would expect to see in a human and the
> > neck attachment is much smaller. All consistent with a Grey / human hybrid.
> >
> > You can see the photos, forensic rendering and scientific analysis here.
> >
> > http://www.starchildproject.com/page-01.html
> >
> > Final proof will be the complete DNA analysis which hopefully will arrive
> > some time in the new year.
> >
> > My money says Sir Arthur was right (again).
> >
> > Seasons greetings,
> >
> > ThePuppetMaster
> >
> >
> >
Best regards,
ThePuppetMaster
ThePuppetMaster
One example is enough. If genetic testing proves it to be a hybrid it
is a hybrid. Period.
Its not me that should go to sleep its you who should wake up.
Best regards,
ThePuppetMaster
James J. Lippard
wrote:
> "James J. Lippard" <lippard...@discord.org> wrote in message
news:<slrna2nuh2.nsl...@chaos.discord.org>...
>> The site you cite seems to indicate that it is an anomalous human skull
>> (DNA testing found it to be a human male, see
>> http://www.starchildproject.com/dna-01.html).
>
> You didnt read, or chose to ignore the "Y" chromosome was not included
> in the tests. As Lloyd Pye says
>
> "If everything lines up as it should, then the Starchild is entirely
> human. Period. If they don’t line up equally, then it is
> something other than human. Period."
I don't know where you're reading that, but at the URL I cited above is
the following text from the person who conducted the DNA tests,
David Sweet:
"Conclusions-
Due to the strict cleaning regimen employed with this sample, it is my
opinion that the DNA that was isolated and tested was not from
exogenous, contaminating DNA. The result appears to be due to the age
of the skull; the genomic DNA is too degraded to provide a complete
profile. The sex of the decedent has been verified as male. The traces
of DNA that were recovered in each of the numerous tests performed in
this laboratory responded to human-specific probes."
Your claim that "the 'Y' chromosome was not included in the tests" is
not correct:
"Results- PCR-based amplification of this trace of DNA produced an X-Y
(male) profile but did not result in supra-threshold results at other
forensically significant loci. (No peaks.) The second half of the
sample was then processed and concentrated. PCR-based amplification of
the DNA produced the same result as with the first half. That is, X-Y
(male) and no peaks at other genetic loci tested."
By my reading, Pye would like to see additional tests to look at
mitochondrial DNA, use data from the Human Genome Project to try to
interpolate degraded DNA from this find, etc., but has stepped down
from his role of facilitator.
Michael Davis
> Michael Davis <mdav...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:<3C2BE466...@ix.netcom.com>...
> > The clueless kook calling itself ThePuppetMaster wrote:
> >
> > > The lack of knowledge displayed by debunkers is quite outstanding. It gets
> > > up my nose when they claim that there is no evidence to support the ET /
> > > human hybridization program, when in fact there is ample.
> >
> > Actually, there is zero evidence that there have ever even been any aliens
> > visiting Earth, let alone carrying out any sort of X-Files type hybridization
> > nonsense.
>
> What rubbish.
This starchild nonsense of yours is, yes.
> There is lots of evidence.
No there isn't.
> Testimony is evidence,
No it isn't, testimony is just stories, not evidence.
> photographs are evidence,
Not when they are useless for proving your claims they aren't. There are no photos available that
conclusively support the alien visitation myth.
> video recordings are evidence.
Not when they are useless for proving your claims they aren't. There is no video available that
conclusively supports the alien visitation myth.
> It may be
> true to say that there isnt any conclusive evidence available at this
> time,
Then try saying it instead of the BS that follows.
> but to say that there is no evidence is idiotic.
Contradiction noted. There is zero evidence that any aliens have ever visited Earth.
> > > The best example of evidence to my knowledge is the 900 year old skull,
> > > found in Mexico some seventy years ago. Even as a child the skull's brain
> > > capacity was some 200cc larger than a normal human adults. The eye sockets
> > > are much wider and shallower than you would expect to see in a human and the
> > > neck attachment is much smaller. All consistent with a Grey / human hybrid.
> >
> > Snarf! Damn you're stupid. A deformed skull does not equal evidence of an alien
> > hybridization program. Do a web search and see all the different ways human
> > skulls can be deformed by disease or even by intentionally shaping the soft
> > skulls of infants into strange forms as some cultures did.
>
> Shows how much you know, numbnut. There is evidence that the
> deformations were not caused by intentional shaping (included in the
> scientific analysis).
Did you miss the part where I mentioned disease as a possible cause? And why should I believe a
so-called "scientific analysis" from a crackpot who is working from the assumption that he has
already found an alien hybrid? He's not trying to find the truth, (whatever it may be), he's just
trying to validate his preconceived notion. That is if the whole thing isn't just a con game to scam
a few bucks off of gullible rubes like you. Did you notice the solicitations for contributions on the
site? You can send a check, or for your convenience, wire money directly into their account, they
give instructions on how to do it.
> You also demonstrate dual standards. As evidence of evolution you hold
> up those Australopithecus bones found in Afirca. Alien hybrid bones
> are dismissed as a butt ugly kid. You accept one and ignore the other?
Um, where did I mention evolution anywhere in my previous reply to your drivel? Quit trying to build
a straw man. Either your case can stand on it's own or it can't. Don't try to drag in other
irrelevant issues.
> >
> > > You can see the photos, forensic rendering and scientific analysis here.
> >
> > Correction: You will see a lot of woo-woo nonsense there.
> >
> > > http://www.starchildproject.com/page-01.html
> > >
> > > Final proof will be the complete DNA analysis which hopefully will arrive
> > > some time in the new year.
> >
> > Yeah, right, any day now. I predict we will never see the results of these
> > alleged DNA tests. Lots of idiots like you will make all sorts of claims, but no
> > independently verifiable results will ever be forthcoming.
>
> Pah! You either cant read or read only what you want to. The latest
> update on the site was a notice about a planned DNA analysis.
You're the one who can't read, puppet boy. I said I predict we will never see the results. I don't
give a damn what the web site says. These woo-woo sites always promise that the proof will be
available any day now. Years from now he will still be promising that it will be here any day now.
The longer they string you rubes along, the more contributions they can rake in. It's a nice little
racket. This is going to go on for years at least. Want to bet any money on it?
> > > My money says Sir Arthur was right (again).
> >
> > Again? You really are stupid.
>
> And you are a fat bastard.
And you are still amazingly stupid.
--
The Evil Michael Davis™
Ruler For Life of AAR
http://mdavis19.tripod.com
http://skepticult.org Member #264-70198-536
Flaggy random killfile member #33 1/3
"Man's most valuable trait is a judicious sense of what not to believe." - Euripides
NO_2675
video...
On Thu, 27 Dec 2001 22:17:58 -0500, Michael Davis
<mdav...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Ugly Bob
> The clueless kook calling itself ThePuppetMaster wrote:
<snip>
> > Pah! You either cant read or read only what you want to. The latest
> > update on the site was a notice about a planned DNA analysis.
>
> You're the one who can't read, puppet boy. I said I predict we will never
see the results. I don't
> give a damn what the web site says. These woo-woo sites always promise
that the proof will be
Well, I went to the site, got curious, did a 'whois' lookup
on the domain and here's who it's registered to:
__________________________________________
Registrant:
Mark Bean (STARCHILDPROJECT-DOM)
4861 Fiesta Lakes St.
Las Vegas, NV 89130
US
Domain Name: STARCHILDPROJECT.COM
Administrative Contact, Billing Contact:
Bean, Mark (MB20520) cyb...@LVCM.COM
Mark Bean
4861 Fiesta Lakes St.
Las Vegas , NV 89130
702.658.5810
__________________________________________
Then I did a search for Mark Bean, and found this:
http://www.virtualtheater.com/bean.html
I find it curious that he registered under an alias, don't you?
He's apparently a graphic artist with a background in virtual
reality. I think he's also supervised post production in some
television shows, though I'm not certain that it's the same guy.
> available any day now. Years from now he will still be promising that it
will be here any day now.
> The longer they string you rubes along, the more contributions they can
rake in. It's a nice little
> racket. This is going to go on for years at least. Want to bet any money
on it?
I don't think I'd take that bet, even if you were to give odds.
-Ugly Bob
<snip>
Ugly Bob
"NO_2675" <NO_...@rayliotta.com> wrote in message
news:t3hp2ugcjmo116bq5...@4ax.com...
>
> On Thu, 27 Dec 2001 22:17:58 -0500, Michael Davis
> <mdav...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >Lots of idiots like you will make all sorts of claims, but no
> >independently verifiable results will ever be forthcoming.
>
> Ayup, just like the Govt translation of the Binny-boy confessional
> video...
Well, why don't you go down to your local Mosque, find
someone who speaks Arabic and ask _their_ opinion?
-Ugly Bob
Amadeus
fake. In Tolmec tradition children had their heads bound with a stone placed
within the knot. This, like the Chinese binding of feet causes distortion of
the skeletle frame, thus the Star Child skull. I would be interested if you
could find genuine evidence though.
ThePuppetMaster <tim...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a0ghbi$uvl$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
ThePuppetMaster
> The clueless kook calling itself ThePuppetMaster wrote:
>
> > Michael Davis <mdav...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:<3C2BE466...@ix.netcom.com>...
> > > The clueless kook calling itself ThePuppetMaster wrote:
> > >
> > > > The lack of knowledge displayed by debunkers is quite outstanding.
It gets
> > > > up my nose when they claim that there is no evidence to support the
ET /
> > > > human hybridization program, when in fact there is ample.
> > >
> > > Actually, there is zero evidence that there have ever even been any
aliens
> > > visiting Earth, let alone carrying out any sort of X-Files type
hybridization
> > > nonsense.
> >
> > What rubbish.
>
> This starchild nonsense of yours is, yes.
>
Perhaps, perhaps not. How the hell do you know?
> > There is lots of evidence.
>
> No there isn't.
>
Yes there is.
> > Testimony is evidence,
>
> No it isn't, testimony is just stories, not evidence.
>
Perhaps you should explain that to the grand jury.Here's an example of them
accepting testimony as evidence
http://www.cnni.co.uk/ALLPOLITICS/1998/04/07/lewinsky.scandal/
> > photographs are evidence,
>
> Not when they are useless for proving your claims they aren't. There are
no photos available that
> conclusively support the alien visitation myth.
>
Photographs ARE evidence. Photographs exist. Therefore evidence exists.
Although you are correct to say that the evidence is not conclusive.
> > video recordings are evidence.
>
> Not when they are useless for proving your claims they aren't. There is no
video available that
> conclusively supports the alien visitation myth.
>
Video recordings of ETs are evidence of ETs. Again, not conclusive but
evidence all the same.
> > It may be
> > true to say that there isnt any conclusive evidence available at this
> > time,
>
> Then try saying it instead of the BS that follows.
>
I did say it, you clown.
> > but to say that there is no evidence is idiotic.
>
> Contradiction noted. There is zero evidence that any aliens have ever
visited Earth.
>
What contradiction? I said evidence exists but that it is not conclusive.
You said that there is zero evidence. One piece of testimony is more than
zero, therfore you were wrong.
> > > > The best example of evidence to my knowledge is the 900 year old
skull,
> > > > found in Mexico some seventy years ago. Even as a child the skull's
brain
> > > > capacity was some 200cc larger than a normal human adults. The eye
sockets
> > > > are much wider and shallower than you would expect to see in a human
and the
> > > > neck attachment is much smaller. All consistent with a Grey / human
hybrid.
> > >
> > > Snarf! Damn you're stupid. A deformed skull does not equal evidence of
an alien
> > > hybridization program. Do a web search and see all the different ways
human
> > > skulls can be deformed by disease or even by intentionally shaping the
soft
> > > skulls of infants into strange forms as some cultures did.
> >
> > Shows how much you know, numbnut. There is evidence that the
> > deformations were not caused by intentional shaping (included in the
> > scientific analysis).
>
> Did you miss the part where I mentioned disease as a possible cause? And
why should I believe a
I would have thought that an examination of the skull would reveal evidence
of the disease.
> so-called "scientific analysis" from a crackpot who is working from the
assumption that he has
> already found an alien hybrid? He's not trying to find the truth,
(whatever it may be), he's just
> trying to validate his preconceived notion. That is if the whole thing
isn't just a con game to scam
> a few bucks off of gullible rubes like you. Did you notice the
solicitations for contributions on the
> site? You can send a check, or for your convenience, wire money directly
into their account, they
> give instructions on how to do it.
>
You don't *have* to send money.
> > You also demonstrate dual standards. As evidence of evolution you hold
> > up those Australopithecus bones found in Afirca. Alien hybrid bones
> > are dismissed as a butt ugly kid. You accept one and ignore the other?
>
> Um, where did I mention evolution anywhere in my previous reply to your
drivel? Quit trying to build
> a straw man. Either your case can stand on it's own or it can't. Don't try
to drag in other
> irrelevant issues.
Fair enough.
>
> > >
> > > > You can see the photos, forensic rendering and scientific analysis
here.
> > >
> > > Correction: You will see a lot of woo-woo nonsense there.
> > >
> > > > http://www.starchildproject.com/page-01.html
> > > >
> > > > Final proof will be the complete DNA analysis which hopefully will
arrive
> > > > some time in the new year.
> > >
> > > Yeah, right, any day now. I predict we will never see the results of
these
> > > alleged DNA tests. Lots of idiots like you will make all sorts of
claims, but no
> > > independently verifiable results will ever be forthcoming.
> >
> > Pah! You either cant read or read only what you want to. The latest
> > update on the site was a notice about a planned DNA analysis.
>
> You're the one who can't read, puppet boy. I said I predict we will never
see the results. I don't
> give a damn what the web site says. These woo-woo sites always promise
that the proof will be
> available any day now. Years from now he will still be promising that it
will be here any day now.
Actually the results of a comprehesive genetic analysis would be fairly
conclusive, one way or the other. There are those of us who would like to
have evidence properly examined and debated.
> The longer they string you rubes along, the more contributions they can
rake in. It's a nice little
> racket. This is going to go on for years at least. Want to bet any money
on it?
>
nope :)
> > > > My money says Sir Arthur was right (again).
> > >
> > > Again? You really are stupid.
> >
> > And you are a fat bastard.
>
> And you are still amazingly stupid.
>
And you are incredibly ugly.
> --
> The Evil Michael DavisT
> Ruler For Life of AAR
> http://mdavis19.tripod.com
> http://skepticult.org Member #264-70198-536
> Flaggy random killfile member #33 1/3
>
> "Man's most valuable trait is a judicious sense of what not to believe." -
Euripides
>
Best wishes,
ThePuppetMaster
Art's Good Twin
> Sorry, but the skull (known as the Star Child skull) has been proved as a
> fake. In Tolmec tradition children had their heads bound with a stone placed
> within the knot. This, like the Chinese binding of feet causes distortion of
> the skeletle frame, thus the Star Child skull. I would be interested if you
> could find genuine evidence though.
Regardless, a single skull doesn't make evidence. Any anomaly can occur in
nature, and then there's disease, malnutrition, and a host of other reasons for
the shape of a human artifact. A handful of similar findings would be tougher,
of course. But a single head? Nah.
Buckler
wrote:
I found this quote on his website to be revealing:
"...It's ironic that when most people hear, over-hear, see or read
something unusual, it gets chiseled
right into stone, regardless of the source. Not to mention the truth,
validity, or accuracy of the
event(s). The worse part is the misinformation spreads like a virus
because it might contain partial
truth(s) which makes it seem even more credible to the superficial
researcher and
naive fanatics of the fringe..."
Mark Mitchell 1998
An artist and designer who does special effects for movies...an
"alien-hybrid" skull, and the above quote? Smells rather strongly of a
hoax.
Buckler
>
Spam-block in use. Remove the third letter of the alphabet from my username to reply.
aa# 1997
Michael Davis
Yeah, that web page is essentially Mitchell's resume as a special effects artist. Finding
mention of the "alien hybrid" skull on it does make the whole thing stink of a hoax.
--
The Evil Michael Davis™
Ruler For Life of AAR
http://mdavis19.tripod.com
http://skepticult.org Member #264-70198-536
Flaggy random killfile member #33 1/3
"For men become civilized, not in proportion to their willingness to believe, but in
proportion to their readiness to doubt." - H. L. Mencken
Michael Davis
> Michael Davis <mdav...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:3C2C8E53...@ix.netcom.com...
> > The clueless kook calling itself ThePuppetMaster wrote:
> >
> > > Michael Davis <mdav...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:<3C2BE466...@ix.netcom.com>...
> > > > The clueless kook calling itself ThePuppetMaster wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > The lack of knowledge displayed by debunkers is quite outstanding.
> It gets
> > > > > up my nose when they claim that there is no evidence to support the
> ET /
> > > > > human hybridization program, when in fact there is ample.
> > > >
> > > > Actually, there is zero evidence that there have ever even been any
> aliens
> > > > visiting Earth, let alone carrying out any sort of X-Files type
> hybridization
> > > > nonsense.
> > >
> > > What rubbish.
> >
> > This starchild nonsense of yours is, yes.
> >
>
> Perhaps, perhaps not. How the hell do you know?
Because I am smart enough to know that the X-Files is *not* a documentary. HTH.
> > > There is lots of evidence.
> >
> > No there isn't.
> >
>
> Yes there is.
Denial noted.
> > > Testimony is evidence,
> >
> > No it isn't, testimony is just stories, not evidence.
> >
>
> Perhaps you should explain that to the grand jury.Here's an example of them
> accepting testimony as evidence
>
> http://www.cnni.co.uk/ALLPOLITICS/1998/04/07/lewinsky.scandal/
The legal definition of evidence is useless in the field of science. It simply
is not nearly rigorous enough. Or hadn't you noticed the innocent people in jail
and the guilty who run free. By your logic all you have to do to "prove" the
skull is an alien hybrid is fool 12 gullible people into believing it. Science
doesn't work that way.
> > > photographs are evidence,
> >
> > Not when they are useless for proving your claims they aren't. There are
> no photos available that
> > conclusively support the alien visitation myth.
> >
>
> Photographs ARE evidence.
They are evidence of photographs, not of alien visitation.
> Photographs exist. Therefore evidence exists.
No evidence of alien visitation exists.
> Although you are correct to say that the evidence is not conclusive.
It conclusively does not exist.
> > > video recordings are evidence.
> >
> > Not when they are useless for proving your claims they aren't. There is no
> video available that
> > conclusively supports the alien visitation myth.
> >
>
> Video recordings of ETs are evidence of ETs.
Too bad no video recordings of ET exist, except for the Hollywood sci-fi movie
of the same name.
> Again, not conclusive but
> evidence all the same.
No evidence of alien visitation exists.
> > > It may be
> > > true to say that there isnt any conclusive evidence available at this
> > > time,
> >
> > Then try saying it instead of the BS that follows.
> >
>
> I did say it, you clown.
>
> > > but to say that there is no evidence is idiotic.
> >
> > Contradiction noted. There is zero evidence that any aliens have ever
> visited Earth.
> >
>
> What contradiction?
If there is no conclusive evidence then there is no evidence. Videos of unknown,
indistinct points of light in the sky is not evidence of alien visitation. It is
merely evidence of unknown, indistinct points of light in the sky. No evidence
of alien visitation exists.
> I said evidence exists but that it is not conclusive.
> You said that there is zero evidence. One piece of testimony is more than
> zero, therfore you were wrong.
Testimony still isn't evidence, so you are still wrong.
> > > > > The best example of evidence to my knowledge is the 900 year old
> skull,
> > > > > found in Mexico some seventy years ago. Even as a child the skull's
> brain
> > > > > capacity was some 200cc larger than a normal human adults. The eye
> sockets
> > > > > are much wider and shallower than you would expect to see in a human
> and the
> > > > > neck attachment is much smaller. All consistent with a Grey / human
> hybrid.
> > > >
> > > > Snarf! Damn you're stupid. A deformed skull does not equal evidence of
> an alien
> > > > hybridization program. Do a web search and see all the different ways
> human
> > > > skulls can be deformed by disease or even by intentionally shaping the
> soft
> > > > skulls of infants into strange forms as some cultures did.
> > >
> > > Shows how much you know, numbnut. There is evidence that the
> > > deformations were not caused by intentional shaping (included in the
> > > scientific analysis).
> >
> > Did you miss the part where I mentioned disease as a possible cause? And
> why should I believe a
>
> I would have thought that an examination of the skull would reveal evidence
> of the disease.
Maybe an independent examination would. But that isn't nearly as headline
generating (or contribution generating) as just claiming up front that it *must*
be an alien hybrid, and won't all you credulous, saucer head, rubes out there
please send me some money so I can "prove" it?
> > so-called "scientific analysis" from a crackpot who is working from the
> assumption that he has
> > already found an alien hybrid? He's not trying to find the truth,
> (whatever it may be), he's just
> > trying to validate his preconceived notion. That is if the whole thing
> isn't just a con game to scam
> > a few bucks off of gullible rubes like you. Did you notice the
> solicitations for contributions on the
> > site? You can send a check, or for your convenience, wire money directly
> into their account, they
> > give instructions on how to do it.
> >
>
> You don't *have* to send money.
I didn't say you did, but if you aren't, how strong is your conviction really?
No it wouldn't. Not having a sample of hypothetical alien DNA for comparison,
you could never prove that any abnormalities in the DNA were a result of
hybridization and not just a result of simple mutation. Of course that won't
stop you saucer head morons from irrationally claiming that any abnormalities
found *must* be a result of hybridization.
> There are those of us who would like to
> have evidence properly examined and debated.
Great! But it will never happen. This is nothing more than a sideshow act. The
proprietor isn't interested in solving the mystery. He's interested in
perpetuating the mystery for as long as the rubes will continue to pay.
> > The longer they string you rubes along, the more contributions they can
> rake in. It's a nice little
> > racket. This is going to go on for years at least. Want to bet any money
> on it?
>
> nope :)
Finally you are showing a tiny glimmer of intelligence.
> > > > > My money says Sir Arthur was right (again).
> > > >
> > > > Again? You really are stupid.
> > >
> > > And you are a fat bastard.
> >
> > And you are still amazingly stupid.
> >
> And you are incredibly ugly.
The ugliest thing in the world is stupidity. I guess that makes you uglier than
me.
--
The Evil Michael Davis™
NO_2675
can 'see'/understand the mumbled botched distorted (ad infinitum)
recording (apparently 'dubbed' over a perfectly decent recording of
some downed 'US' helicopter wreckage) - oh wait, their signals are
'crossed' at the moment...
On Fri, 28 Dec 2001 19:30:44 GMT, "Ugly Bob" <ugly_...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> Well, why don't you go down to your local Mosque, find
Karl Johanson
> Photographs ARE evidence. Photographs exist. Therefore evidence exists.
> Although you are correct to say that the evidence is not conclusive.
>
> > > video recordings are evidence.
> >
> > Not when they are useless for proving your claims they aren't. There is
no
> video available that
> > conclusively supports the alien visitation myth.
>
> Video recordings of ETs are evidence of ETs. Again, not conclusive but
> evidence all the same.
I've seen photos and videos of Santa Claus. Never caught the tooth ferry on
film though.
Karl Johanson
Duncan Wood
"Karl Johanson" <karljo...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:VnnX7.6628$L4.4...@news2.calgary.shaw.ca...
I've never even heard of the tooth ferry!
ThePuppetMaster
> Ruler For Life of AAR
> http://mdavis19.tripod.com
> http://skepticult.org Member #264-70198-536
> Flaggy random killfile member #33 1/3
>
> "For men become civilized, not in proportion to their willingness to
believe, but in
> proportion to their readiness to doubt." - H. L. Mencken
>
>
I find it difficult to believe that DNA samples could be extracted from a
fake skull. The DNA was extracted by reputable scientists, so I'm guessing
its genuine. Do you have any *evidence* to the contrary?
Best regards,
ThePuppetMaster
ThePuppetMaster
This skull was not on the x-files. The above statement is not proof that the
skull is 100% human.
> > > > There is lots of evidence.
> > >
> > > No there isn't.
> > >
> >
> > Yes there is.
>
> Denial noted.
>
> > > > Testimony is evidence,
> > >
> > > No it isn't, testimony is just stories, not evidence.
> > >
> >
> > Perhaps you should explain that to the grand jury.Here's an example of
them
> > accepting testimony as evidence
> >
> > http://www.cnni.co.uk/ALLPOLITICS/1998/04/07/lewinsky.scandal/
>
> The legal definition of evidence is useless in the field of science. It
simply
> is not nearly rigorous enough. Or hadn't you noticed the innocent people
in jail
> and the guilty who run free. By your logic all you have to do to "prove"
the
> skull is an alien hybrid is fool 12 gullible people into believing it.
Science
> doesn't work that way.
>
If an alien craft were to fly above the earth it is difficult to see how any
solid evidence can be provided. It can be seen, filmed and photographed. I
don't see how any more evidence is possible. But that does not mean the
vessel does not exist.
Can you prove that Halley's comet exists? (Bear in mind that you will not
accept photographs, films or eye witness testimony as evidence.)
It is perfectly possible to have evidence that is not conclusive.
If genetic testing proves the skull is human then the skull is human. No
arguments. However, the tests done so far have apparently not been
conclusive (an example of evidence not being conclusive!).
> > There are those of us who would like to
> > have evidence properly examined and debated.
>
> Great! But it will never happen. This is nothing more than a sideshow act.
The
> proprietor isn't interested in solving the mystery. He's interested in
> perpetuating the mystery for as long as the rubes will continue to pay.
>
> > > The longer they string you rubes along, the more contributions they
can
> > rake in. It's a nice little
> > > racket. This is going to go on for years at least. Want to bet any
money
> > on it?
> >
> > nope :)
>
> Finally you are showing a tiny glimmer of intelligence.
>
> > > > > > My money says Sir Arthur was right (again).
> > > > >
> > > > > Again? You really are stupid.
> > > >
> > > > And you are a fat bastard.
> > >
> > > And you are still amazingly stupid.
> > >
> > And you are incredibly ugly.
>
> The ugliest thing in the world is stupidity. I guess that makes you uglier
than
> me.
>
Aaaahhhh shaaddapp!!
> --
> The Evil Michael DavisT
> Ruler For Life of AAR
> http://mdavis19.tripod.com
> http://skepticult.org Member #264-70198-536
> Flaggy random killfile member #33 1/3
>
> "Man's most valuable trait is a judicious sense of what not to believe." -
> Euripides
>
>
Happy new Year!
ThePuppetMaster
Buckler
Do you have the actual DNA report in hand? Have you spoken to the
folks at the lab who performed it? I can think of at least one way to
fake the DNA evidence. It's extraordinarily simple. Can you figure it
out?
Michael Davis
I never said the skull was fake. However, the claims being made about it could
be a hoax. The above information does not exactly bolster the credibility of the
people involved. The whole thing is starting to look like a circus side-show.
This skull is a new millennium version of a "pickled punk."
--
The Evil Michael Davis™
Ruler For Life of AAR
http://mdavis19.tripod.com
http://skepticult.org Member #264-70198-536
Flaggy random killfile member #33 1/3
"Can't you recognize bullshit? Don't you think it would be a useful item to add
to your intellectual toolkits to be capable of saying, when a ton of wet
steaming bullshit lands on your head, 'My goodness, this appears to be
bullshit'?" - Cryptonomicon
Michael Davis
Alien visitation is nothing more than science fiction. Alien hybridization
programs are nothing more than science fiction.
> > > > > There is lots of evidence.
> > > >
> > > > No there isn't.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Yes there is.
> >
> > Denial noted.
> >
> > > > > Testimony is evidence,
> > > >
> > > > No it isn't, testimony is just stories, not evidence.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Perhaps you should explain that to the grand jury.Here's an example of
> them
> > > accepting testimony as evidence
> > >
> > > http://www.cnni.co.uk/ALLPOLITICS/1998/04/07/lewinsky.scandal/
> >
> > The legal definition of evidence is useless in the field of science. It
> simply
> > is not nearly rigorous enough. Or hadn't you noticed the innocent people
> in jail
> > and the guilty who run free. By your logic all you have to do to "prove"
> the
> > skull is an alien hybrid is fool 12 gullible people into believing it.
> Science
> > doesn't work that way.
> >
>
> If an alien craft were to fly above the earth it is difficult to see how any
> solid evidence can be provided. It can be seen, filmed and photographed. I
> don't see how any more evidence is possible. But that does not mean the
> vessel does not exist.
It also doesn't mean that just because people see, photograph and film
*something* that it must have been an alien spacecraft.
> Can you prove that Halley's comet exists?
Halley's comet is still visible in large telescopes. Beyond that, twice every
year the Earth passes through the trail of debris left behind from the comet's
repeated passages through the inner solar system and we see meteor showers as a
result. And if you still have doubts, it will be visible again to unaided
eyeballs in 2062. Mark your calendar.
> (Bear in mind that you will not
> accept photographs, films or eye witness testimony as evidence.)
Sure I will accept photos or films as evidence, as long as they are conclusively
of Halley's comet. That's easy enough to verify. The problem with fuzzy UFO
photos is that:
1) Most of them are so indistinct that they could be almost anything.
2) Nobody knows what an alien spacecraft supposedly would look like, so calling
some blob in a photo an alien spacecraft is just pure wishful thinking.
Inconclusive evidence is useless and equivalent to no evidence.
Irrelevant. No matter what the DNA testing shows you would have no grounds for
claiming the skull is a hybrid without any alien DNA for comparison (in the
highly unlikely event that aliens would even have such similar biochemistry to
ours). There is no possible test that could prove the skull is an alien hybrid
without a sample of alien DNA for comparison so this whole exercise is a massive
waist of time at best, and a massive fraud at worst.
> > > There are those of us who would like to
> > > have evidence properly examined and debated.
> >
> > Great! But it will never happen. This is nothing more than a sideshow act.
> The
> > proprietor isn't interested in solving the mystery. He's interested in
> > perpetuating the mystery for as long as the rubes will continue to pay.
> >
> > > > The longer they string you rubes along, the more contributions they
> can
> > > rake in. It's a nice little
> > > > racket. This is going to go on for years at least. Want to bet any
> money
> > > on it?
> > >
> > > nope :)
> >
> > Finally you are showing a tiny glimmer of intelligence.
> >
> > > > > > > My money says Sir Arthur was right (again).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Again? You really are stupid.
> > > > >
> > > > > And you are a fat bastard.
> > > >
> > > > And you are still amazingly stupid.
> > > >
> > > And you are incredibly ugly.
> >
> > The ugliest thing in the world is stupidity. I guess that makes you uglier
> than
> > me.
> >
>
> Aaaahhhh shaaddapp!!
Hit and score!
--
The Evil Michael Davis™
Ruler For Life of AAR
http://mdavis19.tripod.com
http://skepticult.org Member #264-70198-536
Flaggy random killfile member #33 1/3
"Can't you recognize bullshit? Don't you think it would be a useful item to add
DanKettler
How to Reclaim Newsgroups -- see *** below.
ThePuppetMaster
<tim...@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <a0imk0$83b$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>
wrote:
> Michael Davis <mdav...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
TPM: ...they claim that there is no evidence to support
the ET / human hybridization program, when in fact
there is ample.
DK: Yes, good evidence but no conclusive proof.
DK: Actually, the evidence should be
weighed by the unbiased
observer. Each person determines
what is sufficient evidence, to themselves.
DK: There is evidence for many types of
phenomena, (psychic phenomena, etc.)
but it's up to the observer to determine
how significant it is.
DK: However, discussion of the meaning of alien visitation
amongst those who find value in these subjects is far
more productive than argument with so-called "skeptics."
DK: I do argue with them sometimes, but it's just
occasional, and for fun. Those who fanatically
oppose the validity of UFO phenomena are idiots.
Real skeptics are a different mind-set,
altogether.
***
DK: These newsgroups have been overrun by fanatics,
to the point that few believers post
here. Believers have been intimidated from
posting. This can be corrected, but it
takes the effort of a multitude, not
just me...
DK: This is how to correct the situation...
http://www.psicounsel.com/howtore.html
TPM: > > > > > Testimony is evidence,
MD: > > > > No it isn't, testimony is
MD: > > > > just stories, not evidence.
DK: Both in law, and in science, testimony
is considered evidence.
DK In law, nothing is perfect, thus
we have innocent people executed.
DK: And, there is no perfect science, either.
DK: We have evidence. Some scientists consider
certain evidence good, others say it's bad.
DK: See my refererences to " science " in GOOGLE...
http://groups.google.com/advanced_group_search
TPM: [In law, an example of] accepting testimony as evidence
http://www.cnni.co.uk/ALLPOLITICS/1998/04/07/lewinsky.scandal/
MD: > > The legal definition of evidence is
MD: > > useless in the field of science.
DK: It depends upon what you call science.
DK: Testimony is weighed in the field of science.
DK: Credibility, and numbers, of those giving testimony
is weighed both in science and law. As one example,
an older United States Army General who has nothing to
gain and everything to lose because of his testimony,
is far more credible than many others. See my
references from...
http://www.psicounsel.com/news/index.html
Click near the top at "the truth"
DK: In GOOGLE, use the keyword " science "
to search my posts.
MD: By your logic all you have to do to "prove"
the skull is an alien hybrid is fool 12
gullible people into believing it.
DK: It's kind of stupid of you to write that, Michael.
DK: I don't believe your writing, above, has
any relation to the actual discussion.
DK: Scientific opinion is that of a grouping of
people, far more than 12. There are no
votes to decide which scientists are correct.
TPM: > > > Photographs ARE evidence.
MD: > > They are evidence of photographs, not of alien visitation.
TPM: > > > Photographs exist. Therefore evidence exists.
DK: That is correct. The weight of the
DK: evidence is determined by individual
DK: scientists. That value of each photo
DK: cannot be determined on USENET, particularly
DK: through discussion with juvenile IDIOTS like Michael
DK: Davis. Do a keyword search for my posts, in
DK: GOOGLE, with the word "idiot."
TPM: > > > ...you are correct to say
TPM: > > > that the evidence is not conclusive.
MD: > > It conclusively does not exist.
DK: No, you do not know the meaning of the word "evidence."
DK: Like many other PSEUDO-SKEPTIC-FANATICS, you
DK: declare the negative as absolute fact. That is what
DK: shows the difference between a skeptic and a
DK: pseudo-skeptic. A skeptic doubts, a
DK: pseudo-skeptic concludes and does not
DK: accurately comprehend word meanings.
TPM: > > > > > video recordings are evidence.
> > > > Not when they are useless for **proving
> > > > your claims they aren't.
DK: You do not know the difference
DK: between **"proof" and "evidence."
DK: You are a juvenile, PSEUDO-SKEPTIC-FANATIC
DK: (PSF) idiot.
MD: There is no video available that
MD: conclusively supports the alien
MD: visitation...
TPM: > > > Video recordings of ETs are evidence of ETs.
DK: Still, the idiot Michael Davis
DK: cannot comprehend the difference
DK: between conclusive proof and evidence.
TPM: > > > Again, not conclusive but
TPM: > > > evidence all the same.
MD: > > No evidence of alien visitation exists.
DK: Still, the idiot, Michael Davis, will not go
DK: to his dictionary and discover that "proof"
DK: and "evidence" are two different words.
<snip>
TPM: > > > > > but to say that there is no evidence is idiotic.
DK: Of course. Most of the PSEUDO-SKEPTIC-FANATICS are idiots.
DK: Evidence for that fact abounds in GOOGLE
DK: archives going back at least a decade.
<snip>
MD: > > If there is no conclusive
MD: > > evidence then there is no evidence...
DK: Now, the above is for your English professor.
DK: Ask him/her if the above makes sense.
TPM: > It is perfectly possible to have
TPM: > evidence that is not conclusive.
TPM: [There was a] 900 year old skull,
TPM: found in Mexico some seventy years
TPM: ago. Even as a child the skull's
TPM: brain capacity was some 200cc
TPM: larger than a normal human adults.
TPM: The eye sockets are much wider and
TPM: shallower...
<snip>
TPM: You can see the photos, forensic rendering and
TPM: scientific analysis here...
> > > > > > > http://www.starchildproject.com/page-01.html
TPM: ...the complete DNA analysis... will hopefully
arrive some time in the new year.
MD: I predict we will never see the results of
these alleged DNA tests....
DK: The rational observer will wait and see, and give
no credit to your opinion. You cannot even
correctly ascertain word meanings, and you're
obviously a fanatic.
TPM: The latest update on the site was a notice about a
TPM: planned DNA analysis.
<snip>
> > --
> > The Evil Michael DavisT
> > Ruler For Life of AAR
> > http://mdavis19.tripod.com
> > http://skepticult.org Member #264-70198-536
[ skepticult http://www.psicounsel.com/skeporg.html ]
> > Flaggy random killfile member #33 1/3
--
send private e-mail via web site
www | k-e-t-t-l-e-r-e-n-t-e-r-p-r-i-s-e-s | com
Ben Hogan
intimidate people into not posting. In my little survey I did, I
specifically asked the readers of these groups a couple questions on
this subject - most people only read posts, and are "afraid" to post,
due to the abusive nature of the debunker's replies. The vast majority
of people believe that some people on these groups are purposely trying
to disrupt the groups as well. It's one thing to disagree with
someone's opinion, and quite another to try to keep people from stating
their opinion.
The best thing that I've found, is to simply ignore the debunkers. If
they want to be civilized and debate the facts, I'll engage them in
debate, if they simply want to intimidate and call names - they get
ignored.
- Ben
In article <3C2F4C9F.ECBD8A56@kettlerenterprises_SEESIG.com>,
DanKettler <WEBSITE@kettlerenterprises_SEESIG.com> wrote:
--------------------------------------------------------
Due to the amount of abusive posts on these newsgroups I
filter out all replies to messages. If you have something
you want me to know about, send me e-mail. Any abusive
e-mail will get you added to my e-mail filter. :-)
Michael Davis
(NGs modified)
Hey. bDAN, WTF are you and your butt buddy the Wollkook doing both
suddenly polluting the UFO NGs with your whiny drivel? Did you both get
your kooky asses driven out of the astrology groups by the NCATing ILK
and PSFs? Gee, that's a real shame. If you think you can hang out here
and lick your wounds in peace though you've got another thing coming.
We have NCAT to burn around here, baby!
> How to Reclaim Newsgroups -- see *** below.
Why bother? It sure as hell hasn't worked for you. alt.paranornal and
alt.astrology have been OWNED by the skeptics ever since you made the
mistake of inviting them over from sci.skeptic so you could "trounce"
them in debate over the paranormal. DOOP! That was a blunder of
monumental proportions, wasn't it spankard? Now you've got skeptic boot
prints all over your rosy red backside and you are the laughingstock of
Usenet. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
> ThePuppetMaster
>
> <tim...@hotmail.com>
>
> Message-ID: <a0imk0$83b$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>
>
> wrote:
>
> > Michael Davis <mdav...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>
> TPM: ...they claim that there is no evidence to support
> the ET / human hybridization program, when in fact
> there is ample.
> DK: Yes, good evidence but no conclusive proof.
All we have good evidence of here is your kooky reformatting of this
post. That's unacceptable, bDAN. You *WILL* leave the formatting intact
or else you will be whining to yourself. We are not going to have any
real discussion until you learn to reply correctly.
--- Snip kooky reformatting ---
> DK: This is how to correct the situation...
>
> http://www.psicons.com/howtospam.html <<<URL edited to reflect
> reality
Now, now, bDAN! None of that. No spamming URLs to your banner laden
abortion of a commercial web site. It's not as if your drivel is in any
way authoritative anyway, it's just more of your usual hate filled
bluster.
--- Snip kooky reformatting ---
> http://www.psicons.com/new_scams/index.html <<<URL edited to reflect
> reality
Not again! Bad kook! No rubes for you!
> Click near the top at "the truth"
"The truth" is nowhere to be found on your abortion of a web site. Are
you still hawking those bogus anti aging pills that got you into
trouble with the feds? I'd check your horrible site myself but I don't
want to increment your page view counter and earn you $0.002. You don't
deserve it.
--- Snip kooky reformatting ---
> DK: Like many other PSEUDO-SKEPTIC-FANATICS, you
What is a "PSEUDO-SKEPTIC-FANATIC" you ask? It is a silly made up
phrase used exclusively by kooks.
--- Snip kooky reformatting ---
> TPM: [There was a] 900 year old skull,
The only thing you are an expert on, bDAN, is running a 1-900 psychic
phone scam. By the way, you never did answer my question about exactly
what your "tested, selected" psychic powers are? Please do tell.
--- Snip kooky reformatting ---
> skepticult http://www.psicons.com/WHAAAAAAAAAAAA!<<<URL edited to
> reflect reality
--
The Evil Michael Davis™
Ruler For Life of AAR
http://mdavis19.tripod.com
http://skepticult.org Member #264-70198-536
Flaggy random killfile member #33 1/3
"No, folks, this "Davis" character is NOT A TROLL! He's for real. He
is not looking for this response from me. I've been on USENET a long
time, so I know what a troll is, and this guy is _not_ one of them." -
Dan Kettler telling the truth, for a change.
Edmond Wollmann
> Uber Kook maximus bDanKettler wrote:
More name calling, you are obsessed with name calling aren't you?
> (NGs modified)
Repaired once again.
> Hey. bDAN, WTF are you and your butt buddy the Wollkook doing both
> suddenly polluting the UFO NGs with your whiny drivel?
You want to censor us?
--
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
© 2001 Altair Publications, SAN 299-5603
Astrological Consulting http://www.astroconsulting.com/
Artworks http://www.e-wollmann.com/
http://www.astroconsulting.com/FAQs/
el...@no.spam
Convicted criminal Edmond Wollmann <E...@astroconsulting.com> wrote:
>More name calling, you are obsessed with name calling aren't you?
PKB:
"Go ahead bigots, make my day."
"You spin doctoring piece of crap"
"You are a pile of garbage."
"Hows AOL, boy I wish I had an AOL account!"
"when do scum deserve any truth"
"WRONG YOU LYING SON OF A BITCH!!!"
"Its [sic] not me with OCD Ricky-its you spinics."
"You are a brown nosing and gutless person who seems to have no
principles or guide by which they live-other than agreeing with
everyone."
"Pam is a slime for supporting anonym"
"Comprende Mr Out of integrity?"
"I am warning you spinic-you are fast becoming enemy #1-get out or post
rationally bigot."
"Wow another immature ignoamous, why couldn't you explain your point first
before I refute it?"
"LYING DISINGENOUS ABUSER"
"DISCOVERY is for a criminal case idiot"
"She is the shitball."
You are such a hypocrite, Wollmann.
NewAge Skeptic
Ben Hogan wrote:
>
> Good post. I'm amazed at the lenghts the skeptics will go to to try to
> intimidate people into not posting. In my little survey I did, I
> specifically asked the readers of these groups a couple questions on
> this subject - most people only read posts, and are "afraid" to post,
> due to the abusive nature of the debunker's replies. The vast majority
> of people believe that some people on these groups are purposely trying
> to disrupt the groups as well. It's one thing to disagree with
> someone's opinion, and quite another to try to keep people from stating
> their opinion.
>
> The best thing that I've found, is to simply ignore the debunkers. If
> they want to be civilized and debate the facts,...
And therein lies the problem. What gets presented as 'fact' in these NGs
is no more than opinion. What is presented as 'evidence' of the
paranormal is no more than belief. Statements such as 'there is in fact
a great likelihood' or 'mounds of evidence' are sure to draw skepticism.
We've all seen enough fuzzy photos, jerky video, third party hearsay,
and allegations of government conspiracies to last a lifetime. We've
also seen these exhibits continually presented as evidence leading to
proof. There is also an abundance of archived debate on what is
*evidence* that goes in circles.
IMHO, a good number that are 'afraid' to post are those who would hold
their beliefs up as truth but can't skillfully argue in its favor. Those
believers that do post (with few exceptions) will usually present their
beliefs as a statement of fact beyond reproach and then get indignant,
arrogant, and rude when asked to make their case beyond opinion. Some,
perhaps within your survey, will simply lurk out of mild interest and
never post.
No one is trying to keep anyone from expressing their stated opinion,
but anyone who wishes to present opinion as fact or evidence will
definitely draw skeptical rebuttal. Who's to blame? How many posts have
you read where believers preface their post with 'it is my opinion or
belief' or something like that?
>.... I'll engage them in
> debate, if they simply want to intimidate and call names - they get
> ignored.
There are a few proponents in alt.paranormal that do present their views
as belief and engage with posters across the spectrum. No name
calling..just civilized debate. Their beliefs are no different than the
zealous true believer. They just don't scream "proof" and "evidence".
The following is pasted from a post by Jack Sarfatti, a respected
scientist and considered to be a proponent of the paranormal by Kettler
and Flagship. Jack is critical of both extremes:
"CSICOP is extremist on the anti-paranormal side. They are "True
Believers" as much as the kooky New Agey lite-minde, but supremely
arrogant, pro paranormal/UFO/ over unity zero point energy
anti-intellectual extremists with little education and still less
critical judgment. Neither extreme is to be trusted at face value."
<snip>
--
Sandy
----------------------------------------
The ignorant reach erroneous conclusions
and make unfortunate choices, and their
incompetence robs them of the ability to
realize it. - Kruger
----------------------------------------
Karl Johanson
news:a0lcm1$dpt$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
> "Karl Johanson" <karljo...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
> > > Video recordings of ETs are evidence of ETs. Again, not conclusive but
> > > evidence all the same.
> >
> > I've seen photos and videos of Santa Claus. Never caught the tooth ferry
> on
> > film though.
>
> I've never even heard of the tooth ferry!
Big ship that carries away all the lost teeth from children. The teeth of
good children go to Hoohoo land. The teeth of bad children are delivered to
crop circle sites so they can be retrieved by aliens (so they don't need to
capture so many people & drill their teeth). The teeth of amoral children
are held in at a large repository at a secret US air base.
Karl Johanson
Spamster
Edmond Wollmann wrote:
> Michael Davis wrote:
>
> > Uber Kook maximus bDanKettler wrote:
>
> More name calling, you are obsessed with name calling aren't you?
>
> > (NGs modified)
>
> Repaired once again.
>
And again, and more email for you.
Marsha
>Michael Davis wrote:
>
>> Uber Kook maximus bDanKettler wrote:
>
>More name calling, you are obsessed with name calling aren't you?
You are a seriously deluded shitstain, Wollmann. You're the one that's
obsessed with name calling. Why must you project your silly impotece
on usenet?
>
>> (NGs modified)
metapsych added.
>
>Repaired once again.
>
>> Hey. bDAN, WTF are you and your butt buddy the Wollkook doing both
>> suddenly polluting the UFO NGs with your whiny drivel?
>
>You want to censor us?
Nope, he is simply pointing out your buffoonery. Comprende?
ThePuppetMaster
That would be pretty conclusive, if it were true. Trouble is I don't have
access to a large telescope. I'd have to accept the testimony of someone who
does. Testimony is inadmissable as evidence.
> year the Earth passes through the trail of debris left behind from the
comet's
> repeated passages through the inner solar system and we see meteor showers
as a
Can you prove that the meteor showers are caused by debris from Halley's
comet and are not just some junk floating out in space?
> result. And if you still have doubts, it will be visible again to unaided
> eyeballs in 2062. Mark your calendar.
>
That's a long time to wait for proof. Of course, I'm in no doubt that your
arguments are correct. I'm merely illustrating the stupidity of the
debunker's mindset.
In fact, the debunker mindset is worse. They accept some things as true
because they are told they are true but refute others when they are told
they are false. E.g. the Copernican view was ridiculed right into the
seventeenth century. The only way of establishing the truth is to examine
all the evidence, not just the evidence that fits your own preconceptions.
> > (Bear in mind that you will not
> > accept photographs, films or eye witness testimony as evidence.)
>
> Sure I will accept photos or films as evidence, as long as they are
conclusively
> of Halley's comet. That's easy enough to verify. The problem with fuzzy
UFO
> photos is that:
>
> 1) Most of them are so indistinct that they could be almost anything.
>
> 2) Nobody knows what an alien spacecraft supposedly would look like, so
calling
> some blob in a photo an alien spacecraft is just pure wishful thinking.
>
Sure, if you had the photo alone the hypothesis is that they are ET craft
would be little better than worthless. However, when several reliable,
independent witnesses report that the object intelligent behaviour the case
is a little stronger. If the object was picked up on radar too the evidence
is stronger still. You have to look at all the evidence.
True, the analysis would not prove that the skull was alien. But it could
prove that the skull is entirely human, which would be disappointing. The
analysis could also prove that the skull is not entirely human, which would
be cool.
> The Evil Michael DavisT
> Ruler For Life of AAR
> http://mdavis19.tripod.com
> http://skepticult.org Member #264-70198-536
> Flaggy random killfile member #33 1/3
>
> "Can't you recognize bullshit? Don't you think it would be a useful item
to add
> to your intellectual toolkits to be capable of saying, when a ton of wet
> steaming bullshit lands on your head, 'My goodness, this appears to be
> bullshit'?" - Cryptonomicon
>
>
For me the verdict is still out on this one. As you say the skull could be
fake or a deformed human. On the other hand there is a chance that the skull
is an ET hybrid whether you like it or not. I'd like to know the truth
either way.
Best regards,
ThePuppetMaster
Death's Scarecrow
>Michael Davis wrote:
>> Uber Kook maximus bDanKettler wrote:
>More name calling, you are obsessed with name calling aren't you?
Say FU again, Ed Hominem.
>> (NGs modified)
>Repaired once again.
Fixed.
>> Hey. bDAN, WTF are you and your butt buddy the Wollkook doing both
>> suddenly polluting the UFO NGs with your whiny drivel?
>You want to censor us?
What? Are you afraid of a rival censor?
ash
['Gosh, fucknuts. Break out the kitty claws!']
--
"I feel like a fugitive from th' law of averages."
*****************************************************************
Riven against a Black Sun twosixone ...that which we are, we are.
ootdontspatteredwemandanabundanceofthreatsandsecretlawsuitsgiveme
myRepublicbackyoulyingthievingbastardssuemenowbabyalltheyllreally
dointheendisturnthecountryintoonebigconcentrationcampgetoffmywave
ThePuppetMaster
Buckler <buck...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:81gt2ukteokc0hfn3...@4ax.com...
No, no and no. However, as the initial report was not favorable to the alien
hybrid hypothesis and the scientist who conducted is reputable it seems
unlikely to be fake. If Dr Sweet did not perform the analysis he should sue.
Please enlighten me as to how it is possible to get DNA inside a fake skull.
Best regards,
ThePuppetMaster
Fred Garvin
> The lack of knowledge displayed by debunkers is quite outstanding. It gets
> up my nose when they claim that there is no evidence to support the ET /
> human hybridization program, when in fact there is ample.
>
There is NONE. Period.
> The best example of evidence to my knowledge is the 900 year old skull,
> found in Mexico some seventy years ago. Even as a child the skull's brain
> capacity was some 200cc larger than a normal human adults. The eye sockets
> are much wider and shallower than you would expect to see in a human and the
> neck attachment is much smaller. All consistent with a Grey / human hybrid.
Don't know much about deformities do you? Guess not.
> You can see the photos, forensic rendering and scientific analysis here.
>
> http://www.starchildproject.com/page-01.html
Yes folks, do take a look at this nonsense.
> Final proof will be the complete DNA analysis which hopefully will arrive
> some time in the new year.
Yes, we await with baited breath!
> My money says Sir Arthur was righ
> Seasons greetings,
>
Happy new year!
> ThePuppetMaster
--
Why is the alphabet in that order? Is it because of that
song? - George Carlin
Fred Garvin
> Michael Davis <mdav...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:3C2C8E53...@ix.netcom.com...
>
> > > photographs are evidence,
> >
> > Not when they are useless for proving your claims they aren't. There are
> no photos available that
> > conclusively support the alien visitation myth.
> >
>
> Photographs ARE evidence. Photographs exist. Therefore evidence exists.
> Although you are correct to say that the evidence is not conclusive.
All the photos that exist are so poor quality and/or so easily faked
now a days that they are laughable at best for proof.
> > > video recordings are evidence.
> >
> > Not when they are useless for proving your claims they aren't. There is no
> video available that
> > conclusively supports the alien visitation myth.
> >
>
> Video recordings of ETs are evidence of ETs. Again, not conclusive but
> evidence all the same.
All the videos that exist are so poor quality and/or so easily faked now
a days that they are laughable at best for proof.
> Best wishes,
Fred Garvin
>
> If an alien craft were to fly above the earth it is difficult to see how any
> solid evidence can be provided. It can be seen, filmed and photographed. I
> don't see how any more evidence is possible. But that does not mean the
> vessel does not exist.
YOU have to prove it is "alien" in nature. This is VERY hard for you
to do and causes great frustration among true believers. Understandable!
> Can you prove that Halley's comet exists? (Bear in mind that you will not
> accept photographs, films or eye witness testimony as evidence.)
Comets we know are real, we see them regularly such as Comet WM1
Linear just recently. Visible in the southern skies right now at mag 6.
There's a big difference between seeing an astronomical object and
something claimed to be an alien spacecraft. You make the claim, you
back it up with tangible proof.
> If genetic testing proves the skull is human then the skull is human. No
> arguments. However, the tests done so far have apparently not been
> conclusive (an example of evidence not being conclusive!
Bullshit. You know it and we know it. It's human.
> Happy new Year!
Michael Davis
--- Snip ---
> >
> > > Can you prove that Halley's comet exists?
> >
> > Halley's comet is still visible in large telescopes. Beyond that, twice
> every
>
> That would be pretty conclusive, if it were true. Trouble is I don't have
> access to a large telescope. I'd have to accept the testimony of someone who
> does. Testimony is inadmissable as evidence.
Testimony may be but the comet would be easy enough to pick out of a photograph
taken of the area of sky where orbital mechanics says the comet should be now.
Since independent photos taken by different researchers at different telescopes
will all show the same thing this is very good evidence.
> > year the Earth passes through the trail of debris left behind from the
> comet's
> > repeated passages through the inner solar system and we see meteor showers
> as a
>
> Can you prove that the meteor showers are caused by debris from Halley's
> comet and are not just some junk floating out in space?
Um, it is just junk floating in space, but junk that blew off of Halley. And yes
that can be proven. The orbit of meteoritic material can be determined from
backtracking along the streaks they make as they burn up in the atmosphere. The
material can be shown to originate from Halley's comet. Again these observations
and calculations can be repeated by multiple independent researchers resulting
in very high quality evidence.
> > result. And if you still have doubts, it will be visible again to unaided
> > eyeballs in 2062. Mark your calendar.
> >
>
> That's a long time to wait for proof.
Pray to your god (if you have one) to either change the laws of orbital
mechanics or make you stop aging. It's not my fault the universe doesn't perform
on cue for you.
> Of course, I'm in no doubt that your
> arguments are correct. I'm merely illustrating the stupidity of the
> debunker's mindset.
I must have missed that part.
> In fact, the debunker mindset is worse. They accept some things as true
> because they are told they are true
I accept nothing as true that hasn't passed peer review and been proven by
multiple independent researchers. I don't believe *anything* just because
someone says it must be so. That's the reason I am so skeptical of the claims
made here. It's all just people saying it must be so.
> but refute others when they are told
> they are false.
A claim that something is false is just another claim. I demand proof for those
sorts of claims too.
> E.g. the Copernican view was ridiculed right into the
> seventeenth century. The only way of establishing the truth is to examine
> all the evidence, not just the evidence that fits your own preconceptions.
Ignorance of history noted. It wasn't the skeptics who were ridiculing the
Copernican system, it was the mindless believers in church dogma. It was
skeptics like Kepler and Galileo who were championing the Copernican system
because there was good, solid evidence to back it up, but there was no evidence
to support the Earth centered system.
> > > (Bear in mind that you will not
> > > accept photographs, films or eye witness testimony as evidence.)
> >
> > Sure I will accept photos or films as evidence, as long as they are
> conclusively
> > of Halley's comet. That's easy enough to verify. The problem with fuzzy
> UFO
> > photos is that:
> >
> > 1) Most of them are so indistinct that they could be almost anything.
> >
> > 2) Nobody knows what an alien spacecraft supposedly would look like, so
> calling
> > some blob in a photo an alien spacecraft is just pure wishful thinking.
> >
>
> Sure, if you had the photo alone the hypothesis is that they are ET craft
> would be little better than worthless. However, when several reliable,
> independent witnesses report that the object intelligent behaviour the case
> is a little stronger.
No, not necessarily.
> If the object was picked up on radar too the evidence
> is stronger still.
Possibly, but I don't know of even a single photo/visual/radar incident. Just
incidents where the same UFO is spotted both visually and on radar are quite
rare.
> You have to look at all the evidence.
I am looking at the *lack* of evidence.
--- Snip ---
> > > If genetic testing proves the skull is human then the skull is human. No
> > > arguments. However, the tests done so far have apparently not been
> > > conclusive (an example of evidence not being conclusive!).
> >
> > Irrelevant. No matter what the DNA testing shows you would have no grounds
> for
> > claiming the skull is a hybrid without any alien DNA for comparison (in
> the
> > highly unlikely event that aliens would even have such similar
> biochemistry to
> > ours). There is no possible test that could prove the skull is an alien
> hybrid
> > without a sample of alien DNA for comparison so this whole exercise is a
> massive
> > waist of time at best, and a massive fraud at worst.
> >
>
> True, the analysis would not prove that the skull was alien. But it could
> prove that the skull is entirely human, which would be disappointing. The
> analysis could also prove that the skull is not entirely human, which would
> be cool.
I don't see how the analysis could even show that the skull isn't entirely human
unless you can find some DNA sequences in it that match up with something else.
If you don't have that something else for comparison you can't conclude that the
strange DNA sequence is anything other than mutated human DNA. Anyway, I'm quite
sure the skull is completely human. A genetic defect that would alter the shape
of the skull is probably only a tiny transcription error that may not even show
up in the analysis unless it is a birth defect that is already known and
cataloged. Birth defect is by far the most likely answer and there is no reason
to go jumping to other conclusions, especially if those other conclusions are
impossible to prove.
--- Snip ---
> For me the verdict is still out on this one. As you say the skull could be
> fake or a deformed human. On the other hand there is a chance that the skull
> is an ET hybrid whether you like it or not. I'd like to know the truth
> either way.
The verdict will be out forever. The lunatic fringe and the carnival hucksters
have latched onto this thing. They will never let the issue die. They will keep
stirring up nonexistent controversy around this skull as long as it fits their
agenda or there is a buck to be made off of the rubes.
--
The Evil Michael Davis™
Ruler For Life of AAR
http://mdavis19.tripod.com
http://skepticult.org Member #264-70198-536
Flaggy random killfile member #33 1/3
"I wish there was a knob on the TV to turn up the intelligence. There's a knob
called `brightness', but it doesn't work." - Gallagher
Karl Johanson
work for an insurance company. I have a policy with that company. My house
burns down. I have photos of all my possessions. You notice that one of my
possessions is a slightly deformed skull. I tell you it's worth $652,232.42
because it's an alien human hybrid skull. You think it is a centuries old
slightly deformed human skull worth about the same as my toaster. I tell you
that you have to do numerous tests to prove that the skull isn't alien. Is
the burden of proof on the one making the mundane claim (that it's a
deformed human) or is it on the one making the extraordinary claim (that
it's alien)?
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
Karl Johanson
DanKettler
> Ben Hogan wrote:
> > Good post. I'm amazed at the lenghts the skeptics will go to to try to
> > intimidate people into not posting. In my little survey I did, I
> > specifically asked the readers of these groups a couple questions on
> > this subject - most people only read posts, and are "afraid" to post,
> > due to the abusive nature of the debunker's replies. The vast majority
> > of people believe that some people on these groups are purposely trying
> > to disrupt the groups as well. It's one thing to disagree with
> > someone's opinion, and quite another to try to keep people from stating
> > their opinion.
> >
> > The best thing that I've found, is to simply ignore the debunkers. If
> > they want to be civilized and debate the facts,...
> And therein lies the problem. What gets presented as 'fact'
> in these NGs is no more than opinion.
In the above statement, you have completely avoided the issue.
The actual issue is NET CENSORSHIP AND TERRORISM (NCAT)
documented here...
http://www.psicounsel.com/discsens.html
Referring to believers, this is the comment you completely missed:
"...most people only read posts, and are 'afraid' to post"
> What is presented as 'evidence' of the
> paranormal is no more than belief.
There is evidence that you have completely ignored.
You also ignore what the post is about that you
are allegedly responding to. You do this over
and over, and GOOGLE archives show this as fact.
GOOGLE: http://groups.google.com/advanced_group_search
These web pages deal with evidence of the paranormal:
http://www.psicounsel.com/scistudy.html
http://www.psicounsel.com/faqevid.html
BH: > > The best thing that I've found, is
BH: > > to simply ignore the debunkers.
That, to a great extent, is a good idea. I
could go into greater detail about that, but
it's a complicated issue and I've commented
previously. See GOOGLE archives, and links
from...
http://www.psicounsel.com/news/index.html
> Statements such as 'there is in fact
> a great likelihood' or 'mounds of evidence'
> are sure to draw skepticism.
Again, this is not the issue. Comments of a skeptical
nature in alt.paranormal and alt.alien.visitors are not
the issue. Such comments from real skeptics would
probably be ignored. The problem is NCAT.
> We've all seen enough fuzzy photos,
> jerky video, third party
> hearsay, and allegations of
> government conspiracies to
> last a lifetime.
If you were not a fanatic, you would
continue your comments in sci.skeptic,
and laugh with those of similar views.
If not a fanatic, you would not, while
not being provoked, personally deride
proponents of these subjects.
> We've
> also seen these exhibits continually presented as evidence leading to
> proof. There is also an abundance of archived debate on what is
> *evidence* that goes in circles.
DK: I recently discussed "evidence." In the past I've
DK: discussed what science is, and what anti-ufo fanatics
DK: think it is. See GOOGLE.
NAS: > IMHO, a good number that are 'afraid'
NAS: > to post are those who would hold their
NAS: > beliefs up as truth but can't skillfully
NAS: > argue in its favor.
This is pure fiction. I doubt anyone is "afraid"
to post because they are being argued against by
superiors. As I've made abundantly clear, again
and again, the PSEUDO-SKEPTIC-FANATICS (psf)
(aka "debunkers") are, for the most part, idiots.
Use GOOGLE, and see my posts with the word "idiot"
in them. There you will find abundant evidence
that these sick fools cannot read accurately, nor
can they think logically.
> Those
> believers that do post (with few exceptions) will usually present their
> beliefs as a statement of fact beyond reproach and then get indignant,
> arrogant, and rude when asked to make their case beyond opinion.
The only incidents of indignant response are
when you jerks think that we MUST provide any
evidence in alt.alien.visitors or alt.paranormal.
Providing evidence in these newsgroups to so-called
"skeptics" is not required, at all.
No-one here has to "make their case" for you.
The only "rudeness" I've seen comes when you idiots
write nasty lies about us. You idiots _initiate_
arrogant remarks. I'm not respectful toward you
because you have, for years, repeatedly, written
rather hostile remarks about many of us.
NAS: > Some,
NAS: > perhaps within your survey, will simply
NAS: > lurk out of mild interest and never post.
I have copies of a small sample of the comments I've
seen in alt.paranormal of EXACTLY WHY PEOPLE HAVE
CEASED POSTING...
http://www.psicounsel.com/page9328-a.htm#reg
> No one is trying to keep anyone from
> expressing their stated opinion...
This may be what you actually believe, but
after seeing your posts posted in alt.paranormal
for years, IMHO it shows you could be blinded
to the facts.
I have been censored. Others have been
censored. It's true that, for me, this
censorship only lasted for awhile, but
I have documented evidence that my
posting of ON-TOPIC writing was in
jeapordy. There are copies of lies
to my INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS.
See the NCAT pages.
> but anyone who wishes to present opinion as fact or evidence will
> definitely draw skeptical rebuttal.
Skeptical rebuttal is _NOT_ the issue!
> Who's to blame? How many posts have
> you read where believers preface their
> post with 'it is my opinion or
> belief' or something like that?
If you were not an irrational fanatic, believer
writing in these newsgroups (not "sci") would
not bother you so much. You are disturbed by
it, and it seems obviously otherwise disturbed...
http://www.psicounsel.com/why3.html#sandy
BH: > >.... I'll engage them in
BH: > > debate, if they simply want to intimidate
BH: > > and call names - they get ignored.
> There are a few proponents in alt.paranormal that do present their views
> as belief and engage with posters across the spectrum. No name
> calling..just civilized debate. Their beliefs are no different than the
> zealous true believer. They just don't scream "proof" and "evidence".
In my observation, no one "screams" proof and evidence.
They want to make as little an issue of "proof" or
"evidence" as they can. Fanatics like you make
unusual DEMANDS for it. Others mildly respond.
We, for the most part, are not trying to
prove anything, just discuss amongst ourselves.
You fanatics have chased off all those who are
proponents and would otherwise want to discuss.
I, and many others, don't CARE what you believe,
or disbelieve. You are the one's who CARE
and think you are saving the world from
people like us!
> The following is pasted from a post by Jack Sarfatti, a respected
> scientist and considered to be a proponent of the paranormal by Kettler
> and Flagship. Jack is critical of both extremes:
> "CSICOP is extremist on the anti-paranormal side. They are "True
> Believers" as much as the kooky New Agey lite-minde, but supremely
> arrogant, pro paranormal/UFO/ over unity zero point energy
> anti-intellectual extremists with little education and still less
> critical judgment. Neither extreme is to be trusted at face value."
>
> <snip>
Neither I, nor Flagship, are part of any extreme.
An extreme would be a believer with no critical
thinking still intact. Our only strong issue
is preservation of freedom of speech in these
newsgroups, and freedom from intimidation and
control from fanatics like "digger" "Minatti" etc.
> --
>
> Sandy
>
> ----------------------------------------
> The ignorant reach erroneous conclusions
> and make unfortunate choices, and their
> incompetence robs them of the ability to
> realize it. - Kruger
> ----------------------------------------
--
Mr. Sweetness & Light
DanKettler wrote in message
<3C30366D.63CF688F@kettlerenterprises_SEESIG.com>...
>NewAge Skeptic wrote:
>
>> Ben Hogan wrote:
>
>> > Good post. I'm amazed at the lenghts the skeptics will go to to try to
>> > intimidate people into not posting. In my little survey I did, I
>> > specifically asked the readers of these groups a couple questions on
>> > this subject - most people only read posts, and are "afraid" to post,
>> > due to the abusive nature of the debunker's replies. The vast majority
>> > of people believe that some people on these groups are purposely trying
>> > to disrupt the groups as well. It's one thing to disagree with
>> > someone's opinion, and quite another to try to keep people from stating
>> > their opinion.
>> >
>> > The best thing that I've found, is to simply ignore the debunkers. If
>> > they want to be civilized and debate the facts,...
>
>> And therein lies the problem. What gets presented as 'fact'
>> in these NGs is no more than opinion.
>
>In the above statement, you have completely avoided the issue.
>
Six links to your pages of hate, kookboi! Commercial postings and links to
commercial sites are against the charter of AA, abuser.
--
"The biggest spammer and abuser on the internet Cu...@tsbbearings.net"
- Wollmann showing how to make friends for life with a few kind words.
"The point punk, is that abusers like you will soon be removed completely
from the internet and placed in custody for your criminal
activities." - A comma-challenged Wollmann fucks up yet another prediction.
"So what does that make you? A stalker who stalks an asshole for 7 years now
trying to convince others how bad he is?"
- Ed Wollmann admits he is an asshole!
Cujo - The Official Overseer of Kooks and Trolls in Alt.paranormal,
Alt.astrology, Alt.astrology.pro and Alt.astrology.metapsych
http://www.petitmorte.net/cujo/cujcert.jpg
Fanatic Legion # 555-PLNTY
Rank: Colonel
Motto: "ABUNDANCE!"
Title: Czar of Intelligence
Dan Wojciechowski
Ugly Bob wrote in message ...
...
>> Ayup, just like the Govt translation of the Binny-boy confessional
>> video...
>
> Well, why don't you go down to your local Mosque, find
>someone who speaks Arabic and ask _their_ opinion?
...
Excellent idea. I work with people from all over the world, including
several countries in the Middle East. So far, I've heard no complaints
from my any of them about the translation.
Spamster
DanKettler wrote:
> NewAge Skeptic wrote:
>
> > Ben Hogan wrote:
>
> > > Good post. I'm amazed at the lenghts the skeptics will go to to try to
> > > intimidate people into not posting. In my little survey I did, I
> > > specifically asked the readers of these groups a couple questions on
> > > this subject - most people only read posts, and are "afraid" to post,
> > > due to the abusive nature of the debunker's replies. The vast majority
> > > of people believe that some people on these groups are purposely trying
> > > to disrupt the groups as well. It's one thing to disagree with
> > > someone's opinion, and quite another to try to keep people from stating
> > > their opinion.
> > >
> > > The best thing that I've found, is to simply ignore the debunkers. If
> > > they want to be civilized and debate the facts,...
>
> > And therein lies the problem. What gets presented as 'fact'
> > in these NGs is no more than opinion.
>
> In the above statement, you have completely avoided the issue.
>
> The actual issue is NET CENSORSHIP AND TERRORISM (NCAT)
> documented here...
>
I agree! Very informative site!
Michael Davis
Lame follow-up effort thwarted, kook defeated again. Did you learn that trick
from your butt buddy the Wollkook?
> NewAge Skeptic wrote:
>
> > Ben Hogan wrote:
>
> > > Good post. I'm amazed at the lenghts the skeptics will go to to try to
> > > intimidate people into not posting. In my little survey I did, I
> > > specifically asked the readers of these groups a couple questions on
> > > this subject - most people only read posts, and are "afraid" to post,
> > > due to the abusive nature of the debunker's replies. The vast majority
> > > of people believe that some people on these groups are purposely trying
> > > to disrupt the groups as well. It's one thing to disagree with
> > > someone's opinion, and quite another to try to keep people from stating
> > > their opinion.
> > >
> > > The best thing that I've found, is to simply ignore the debunkers. If
> > > they want to be civilized and debate the facts,...
>
> > And therein lies the problem. What gets presented as 'fact'
> > in these NGs is no more than opinion.
>
> In the above statement, you have completely avoided the issue.
>
> The actual issue is NET CENSORSHIP AND TERRORISM (NCAT)
> documented here...
>
> http://www.psicons.com/dickhead.html <<<URL edited to reflect reality
Naughty boy! No spamming your commercial URLs here, kookler. Besides, your
abortion of a web site is in no way authoritative. NCAT is just a silly made up
phrase used exclusively by kooks. That's all anyone needs to know.
> Referring to believers, this is the comment you completely missed:
>
> "...most people only read posts, and are 'afraid' to post"
Got proof?
> > What is presented as 'evidence' of the
> > paranormal is no more than belief.
>
> There is evidence that you have completely ignored.
> You also ignore what the post is about that you
> are allegedly responding to.
Quit whining. People ignore Ben's posts in droves. He's an idiot, just like
you, only not nearly as psychotic.
> You do this over
> and over, and GOOGLE archives show this as fact.
>
> GOOGLE: http://groups.google.com/advanced_group_search
>
> These web pages deal with evidence of the paranormal:
>
> http://www.psicons.com/I'll_scam_you.html <<<URL edited to reflect reality
>
> http://www.psicons.com/I'm _a_spammer.html <<<URL edited to reflect reality
Bad kook! No rubes for you!
> BH: > > The best thing that I've found, is
> BH: > > to simply ignore the debunkers.
>
> That, to a great extent, is a good idea.
If this is such a great idea, why is it that you seem incapable of doing it?
> I
> could go into greater detail about that, but
> it's a complicated issue and I've commented
> previously. See GOOGLE archives, and links
> from...
>
> http://www.psicons.com/ripoff/index.html <<<URL edited to reflect reality
>
> > Statements such as 'there is in fact
> > a great likelihood' or 'mounds of evidence'
> > are sure to draw skepticism.
That's for damn sure. Those flaggyisms are really lame arguments.
> Again, this is not the issue.
Sure it is, dipshit.
> Comments of a skeptical
> nature in alt.paranormal and alt.alien.visitors are not
> the issue.
Then why are you whining????
> Such comments from real skeptics would
> probably be ignored. The problem is NCAT.
But NCAT doesn't exist except in your kooky mind.
> > We've all seen enough fuzzy photos,
> > jerky video, third party
> > hearsay, and allegations of
> > government conspiracies to
> > last a lifetime.
>
> If you were not a fanatic, you would
> continue your comments in sci.skeptic,
> and laugh with those of similar views.
Attempted censorship noted, hypocrite. Take your NCAT and bugger off.
> If not a fanatic, you would not, while
> not being provoked, personally deride
> proponents of these subjects.
Maybe he's just following the example you set, BruDAN.
> > We've
> > also seen these exhibits continually presented as evidence leading to
> > proof. There is also an abundance of archived debate on what is
> > *evidence* that goes in circles.
Groan. Not the kooky formatting again. bDAN, when are you going to grow up and
stop post editing messages? Just leave the formatting intact and answer the
points raised in a coherent fashion, if you can.
> DK: I recently discussed "evidence." In the past I've
> DK: discussed what science is, and what anti-ufo fanatics
> DK: think it is. See GOOGLE.
>
> NAS: > IMHO, a good number that are 'afraid'
> NAS: > to post are those who would hold their
> NAS: > beliefs up as truth but can't skillfully
> NAS: > argue in its favor.
>
> This is pure fiction. I doubt anyone is "afraid"
> to post because they are being argued against by
> superiors. As I've made abundantly clear, again
> and again, the PSEUDO-SKEPTIC-FANATICS (psf)
> (aka "debunkers") are, for the most part, idiots.
But your writing makes it abundantly clear that you are the idiot here.
> Use GOOGLE, and see my posts with the word "idiot"
> in them. There you will find abundant evidence
> that these sick fools cannot read accurately, nor
> can they think logically.
Irony meter in the red zone.
> > Those
> > believers that do post (with few exceptions) will usually present their
> > beliefs as a statement of fact beyond reproach and then get indignant,
> > arrogant, and rude when asked to make their case beyond opinion.
>
> The only incidents of indignant response are
> when you jerks think that we MUST provide any
> evidence in alt.alien.visitors or alt.paranormal.
> Providing evidence in these newsgroups to so-called
> "skeptics" is not required, at all.
Not required unless you want to be believed. It's that simple. If you have no
proof to back up your kooky claims then there is no reason to believe you. BTW,
what are your psychic powers again?
> No-one here has to "make their case" for you.
Sure they do, if they want to be believed.
> The only "rudeness" I've seen comes when you idiots
bDAN, in this post alone you make liberal use the word idiot, in fact you even
brag about it and suggest people search for posts from you with that word in
them. You also make heavy use of the word fanatic in this post. That's pretty
rude, hypocrisy boy. So PK fucking B, kook.
> write nasty lies about us. You idiots _initiate_
> arrogant remarks.
Irony meter melt-down.
> I'm not respectful toward you
> because you have, for years, repeatedly, written
> rather hostile remarks about many of us.
PKB, kook. This is really rich coming from an asshole with web pages of hate
directed at his critics. Get a grip on reality, kook.
> NAS: > Some,
> NAS: > perhaps within your survey, will simply
> NAS: > lurk out of mild interest and never post.
>
> I have copies of a small sample of the comments I've
> seen in alt.paranormal of EXACTLY WHY PEOPLE HAVE
> CEASED POSTING...
Not again!
> http://www.psicons.com/I_am_an_abuser.htm <<<URL edited to reflect reality
We must be closing in on your personal record for number of times spamming your
blatantly commercial URL in a single post. Bad kook!
> > No one is trying to keep anyone from
> > expressing their stated opinion...
>
> This may be what you actually believe, but
> after seeing your posts posted in alt.paranormal
> for years, IMHO it shows you could be blinded
> to the facts.
Yeah, the fact is that you want to muzzle the skeptics, bDAN. You are the only
censor here.
> I have been censored.
Liar. Why is your hate filled screed still showing up then?
> Others have been
> censored.
Liar.
> It's true that, for me, this
> censorship only lasted for awhile, but
> I have documented evidence that my
> posting of ON-TOPIC writing was in
> jeapordy. There are copies of lies
> to my INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS.
> See the NCAT pages.
Liar. You have had accounts nuked for abuse. That's not censorship. You broke
the rules and you paid the price. You have no one to blame but yourself. Quit
whining and start being a good Usenet citizen.
> > but anyone who wishes to present opinion as fact or evidence will
> > definitely draw skeptical rebuttal.
>
> Skeptical rebuttal is _NOT_ the issue!
Then why are you whining about it?
> > Who's to blame? How many posts have
> > you read where believers preface their
> > post with 'it is my opinion or
> > belief' or something like that?
>
> If you were not an irrational fanatic, believer
> writing in these newsgroups (not "sci") would
> not bother you so much. You are disturbed by
> it, and it seems obviously otherwise disturbed...
You are the only obviously disturbed person I see here at the moment, bDAN.
> http://www.psicons.com/liverspots.html <<<URL edited to reflect reality
What part of NO COMMERCIAL URLS don't you understand, kook?
> BH: > >.... I'll engage them in
> BH: > > debate, if they simply want to intimidate
> BH: > > and call names - they get ignored.
>
> > There are a few proponents in alt.paranormal that do present their views
> > as belief and engage with posters across the spectrum. No name
> > calling..just civilized debate. Their beliefs are no different than the
> > zealous true believer. They just don't scream "proof" and "evidence".
>
> In my observation, no one "screams" proof and evidence.
> They want to make as little an issue of "proof" or
> "evidence" as they can.
Yeah, scam artists and con men like you sure do like to make as little an issue
of proof as possible. You always duck questions about your claims and whine
that people shouldn't even have the right to ask them.
> Fanatics like you make
> unusual DEMANDS for it. Others mildly respond.
>
> We, for the most part, are not trying to
> prove anything,
And you are doing a damn fine job of it too. Nobody believes you are a psychic.
On the other hand, you have done a real good job of (inadvertently) proving
that you are a fraud, spammer, whiner, con man and a kook of epic proportions.
> just discuss amongst ourselves.
> You fanatics have chased off all those who are
> proponents and would otherwise want to discuss.
If their beliefs are so fragile that they can't tolerate a little skepticism
then how sure can they really be of what they believe? Maybe these hypothetical
people that you claim have been "chased off" really just saw the sense in the
skeptical position and then saw no further need to post in AP, AA, etc. Did you
ever think of that?
> I, and many others, don't CARE what you believe,
> or disbelieve. You are the one's who CARE
> and think you are saving the world from
> people like us!
No need to thank us. BTW, you sure do whine a lot for somebody who claims not
to care.
> > The following is pasted from a post by Jack Sarfatti, a respected
> > scientist
Bullshit. Jack Sarfatti is not a scientist. He is a delusional kook who engages
in long conversations with himself on Usenet and thinks Star Trek is a
documentary.
> and considered to be a proponent of the paranormal by Kettler
> > and Flagship. Jack is critical of both extremes:
Well if Jack has the Kettler/Fraudship seal of approval he *must* be a kook.
> > "CSICOP is extremist on the anti-paranormal side. They are "True
> > Believers" as much as the kooky New Agey lite-minde, but supremely
> > arrogant, pro paranormal/UFO/ over unity zero point energy
> > anti-intellectual extremists with little education and still less
> > critical judgment. Neither extreme is to be trusted at face value."
> >
> > <snip>
>
> Neither I, nor Flagship, are part of any extreme.
Bull fucking shit!
> An extreme would be a believer with no critical
> thinking still intact.
That description fits you two morons perfectly.
> Our only strong issue
> is preservation of freedom of speech in these
> newsgroups, and freedom from intimidation and
> control from fanatics like "digger" "Minatti" etc.
Then why are you trying so hard to censor, control and intimidate skeptics?
--- Snip goofy sig ---
--
The Evil Michael Davis™
Ruler For Life of AAR
http://mdavis19.tripod.com
http://skepticult.org Member #264-70198-536
Flaggy random killfile member #33 1/3
"Goddammit! The world is just filling up with more and more idiots! And the
computer is giving them access to the world! They're Spreading their stupidity!
At least they were contained before - now they're on the loose everywhere!" -
Harlan Ellison
Edmond Wollmann
SNIP!
The owner of page you cite, is going to pay me damages for copyright
violation, defamation and harassment.
Michael Davis
Lame follow-up game thwarted, kook defeated again.
AAM added because it pisses you off and you are powerless to do anything
about it.
> jfred wrote:
> SNIP!
Restored
This page should be required reading for everyone on Usenet.
> The owner of page you cite, is going to pay me damages for copyright
> violation, defamation and harassment.
Not bloody likely for the following reasons:
1) It's all true.
2) Even after years of whining you still don't have the balls to
actually file a lawsuit.
3) Even if you could actually grow a pair of nads and file, you'd just
get laughed out of court.
Grow up, Eddie.
--
The Evil Michael Davis™
Ruler For Life of AAR
http://mdavis19.tripod.com
http://skepticult.org Member #264-70198-536
Flaggy random killfile member #33 1/3
"Goddammit! The world is just filling up with more and more idiots! And
NewAge Skeptic
DanKettler wrote:
>
> NewAge Skeptic wrote:
>
> > Ben Hogan wrote:
>
> > > Good post. I'm amazed at the lenghts the skeptics will go to to try to
> > > intimidate people into not posting. In my little survey I did, I
> > > specifically asked the readers of these groups a couple questions on
> > > this subject - most people only read posts, and are "afraid" to post,
> > > due to the abusive nature of the debunker's replies. The vast majority
> > > of people believe that some people on these groups are purposely trying
> > > to disrupt the groups as well. It's one thing to disagree with
> > > someone's opinion, and quite another to try to keep people from stating
> > > their opinion.
> > >
> > > The best thing that I've found, is to simply ignore the debunkers. If
> > > they want to be civilized and debate the facts,...
>
> > And therein lies the problem. What gets presented as 'fact'
> > in these NGs is no more than opinion.
>
> In the above statement, you have completely avoided the issue.
Perhaps the way you see it. Most flames in this group are started when
an true believer touts an incredible assertion and then relies on the
argument from ignorance . If you've missed that point then maybe your
just not paying attention.
>
> The actual issue is NET CENSORSHIP AND TERRORISM (NCAT)
> documented here...
<snipped commercial URL>
> Referring to believers, this is the comment you completely missed:
>
> "...most people only read posts, and are 'afraid' to post"
Actually no. That point was addressed but obviously you were busy
frothing and missed it.
> > What is presented as 'evidence' of the
> > paranormal is no more than belief.
>
> There is evidence that you have completely ignored.
> You also ignore what the post is about that you
> are allegedly responding to. You do this over
> and over, and GOOGLE archives show this as fact.
Sit down, take a deep breath and reread it. Ben's post was addressed
point by point.
More on evidence further down in this reply.
> GOOGLE: http://groups.google.com/advanced_group_search
>
> These web pages deal with evidence of the paranormal:
<snipped commercial URL>
Referring to your own site as authority doesn't impress anyone.
> BH: > > The best thing that I've found, is
> BH: > > to simply ignore the debunkers.
>
> That, to a great extent, is a good idea. I
> could go into greater detail about that, but
> it's a complicated issue and I've commented
> previously. See GOOGLE archives, and links
> from...
Great idea for someone else but not for you? You can't resist any
opportunity to spew your screed on netcopping and spamming your web
shite. Please do go into greater detail. I doubt if its that
complicated. I think we can follow.
<snipped commercial URL>
> > Statements such as 'there is in fact
> > a great likelihood' or 'mounds of evidence'
> > are sure to draw skepticism.
>
> Again, this is not the issue. Comments of a skeptical
> nature in alt.paranormal and alt.alien.visitors are not
> the issue. Such comments from real skeptics would
> probably be ignored. The problem is NCAT.
It is exactly the issue. This newsgroup is a public forum for discussion
of the paranormal, both pro and con. It is not the private domain of
proponents regardless of your and other's effort to make it so. Anyone
wishing to promote or question all matters paranormal is welcome. The
net copping that you go on and on about is most usually done by
proponents as witness your comments in this post. Your continuos effort
to discourage skepticism is an effort to moderate this group. You even
have some pompous list of 'overseers'.
> > We've all seen enough fuzzy photos,
> > jerky video, third party
> > hearsay, and allegations of
> > government conspiracies to
> > last a lifetime.
>
> If you were not a fanatic, you would
> continue your comments in sci.skeptic,
> and laugh with those of similar views.
Again another attempt to regulate. Like many others before me, it was
your ridiculous screed cross-posted into sci.skeptic that drew me here.
I simply had to see it for myself.
> If not a fanatic, you would not, while
> not being provoked, personally deride
> proponents of these subjects.
Its not derision bDan. I know you have a problem understanding certain
issues but this one is not that difficult to grasp. Any unsubstantiated
incredible assertion of any matter paranormal will draw skepticism when
only one's belief is offered as to the verity of the claim. The
provocation to respond is the absurdity of the assertion.
> > We've
> > also seen these exhibits continually presented as evidence leading to
> > proof. There is also an abundance of archived debate on what is
> > *evidence* that goes in circles.
>
> DK: I recently discussed "evidence." In the past I've
> DK: discussed what science is, and what anti-ufo fanatics
> DK: think it is. See GOOGLE.
Did just that the other day. Here's your thread headed "Evidence for
Life After Death":
This is a case in point. You throw out your assertion that there is
evidence but no proof and state you're not prepared to discuss it with
anyone skeptical. You launch into your usual tirade on skeptics (before
any replies were posted) and make this ridiculous statement; "If a
pseudo-skeptic wants proof, they will have to die."
> NAS: > IMHO, a good number that are 'afraid'
> NAS: > to post are those who would hold their
> NAS: > beliefs up as truth but can't skillfully
> NAS: > argue in its favor.
>
> This is pure fiction. I doubt anyone is "afraid"
> to post because they are being argued against by
> superiors.
Then they should have no problem posting right?
> As I've made abundantly clear, again
> and again, the PSEUDO-SKEPTIC-FANATICS (psf)
> (aka "debunkers") are, for the most part, idiots.
Yes you have. Its the basic template for your posts.
> Use GOOGLE, and see my posts with the word "idiot"
> in them. There you will find abundant evidence
> that these sick fools cannot read accurately, nor
> can they think logically.
Now there's logic for you. You go on about name calling but yet you are
the worst offender. Use GOOGLE (can't believe I just wrote that). Your
newage arrogance is shining brightly.
> > Those
> > believers that do post (with few exceptions) will usually present their
> > beliefs as a statement of fact beyond reproach and then get indignant,
> > arrogant, and rude when asked to make their case beyond opinion.
>
> The only incidents of indignant response are
> when you jerks think that we MUST provide any
> evidence in alt.alien.visitors or alt.paranormal.
> Providing evidence in these newsgroups to so-called
> "skeptics" is not required, at all.
No one says you must do anything. If evidence is requested just say "I
don't have any". Don't try to bullshit your way through. That will get
you in trouble each time.
> No-one here has to "make their case" for you.
That is true. As long as they're happy with their beliefs so be it. Just
don't call it anything else.
> The only "rudeness" I've seen comes when you idiots
> write nasty lies about us. You idiots _initiate_
> arrogant remarks. I'm not respectful toward you
> because you have, for years, repeatedly, written
> rather hostile remarks about many of us.
ROTFL. What, no refernce to Google? I don't want your respect Dan.
> NAS: > Some,
> NAS: > perhaps within your survey, will simply
> NAS: > lurk out of mild interest and never post.
>
> I have copies of a small sample of the comments I've
> seen in alt.paranormal of EXACTLY WHY PEOPLE HAVE
> CEASED POSTING...
<snipped commercial URL>
> > No one is trying to keep anyone from
> > expressing their stated opinion...
>
> This may be what you actually believe, but
> after seeing your posts posted in alt.paranormal
> for years, IMHO it shows you could be blinded
> to the facts.
Your humble opinion bothers me not nor do I lend any weight to it. I am
not blinded by facts. That's why I question incredible assertions that
fly in the face of rationality and logic. The number of years is two
bDan (late '99).
> I have been censored. Others have been
> censored. It's true that, for me, this
> censorship only lasted for awhile, but
> I have documented evidence that my
> posting of ON-TOPIC writing was in
> jeapordy. There are copies of lies
> to my INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS.
> See the NCAT pages.
My understanding is that you ran into a problem of your own making. Had
something to with spamming I think.
> > but anyone who wishes to present opinion as fact or evidence will
> > definitely draw skeptical rebuttal.
>
> Skeptical rebuttal is _NOT_ the issue!
Already addressed.
> > Who's to blame? How many posts have
> > you read where believers preface their
> > post with 'it is my opinion or
> > belief' or something like that?
>
> If you were not an irrational fanatic, believer
> writing in these newsgroups (not "sci") would
> not bother you so much. You are disturbed by
> it, and it seems obviously otherwise disturbed...
They don't bother me at all. I find their musings most enlightening. I'm
sorry if that disturbs you.
<snipped commercial URL>
I know you can't resist so I knew you would post your page-o-hate again.
The record shows that I recently undid your post-editing of my messages
and showed what a desperate individual you really are. Honesty is not
your forte.
> BH: > >.... I'll engage them in
> BH: > > debate, if they simply want to intimidate
> BH: > > and call names - they get ignored.
>
> > There are a few proponents in alt.paranormal that do present their views
> > as belief and engage with posters across the spectrum. No name
> > calling..just civilized debate. Their beliefs are no different than the
> > zealous true believer. They just don't scream "proof" and "evidence".
>
> In my observation, no one "screams" proof and evidence.
> They want to make as little an issue of "proof" or
> "evidence" as they can. Fanatics like you make
> unusual DEMANDS for it. Others mildly respond.
I've already posted your message ID. Take a look at recent posts by
proponents of the paranormal.
> We, for the most part, are not trying to
> prove anything, just discuss amongst ourselves.
Really? There is in fact a great likelihood that you're fibbing.
> You fanatics have chased off all those who are
> proponents and would otherwise want to discuss.
> I, and many others, don't CARE what you believe,
> or disbelieve. You are the one's who CARE
> and think you are saving the world from
> people like us!
Oh but you do care bDan. Why bother with this post if you didn't. And
no, I'm not trying to save the world from you or your ilk. I'm not one
to fret over newage New World Order delusions, The Great Plan, or the
Earth's Spiritual Hierarchy. I find it all quite amusing but harmless.
> > The following is pasted from a post by Jack Sarfatti, a respected
> > scientist and considered to be a proponent of the paranormal by Kettler
> > and Flagship. Jack is critical of both extremes:
>
> > "CSICOP is extremist on the anti-paranormal side. They are "True
> > Believers" as much as the kooky New Agey lite-minde, but supremely
> > arrogant, pro paranormal/UFO/ over unity zero point energy
> > anti-intellectual extremists with little education and still less
> > critical judgment. Neither extreme is to be trusted at face value."
> >
> > <snip>
>
> Neither I, nor Flagship, are part of any extreme.
This post says different.
> An extreme would be a believer with no critical
> thinking still intact.
Yes...and?
> Our only strong issue
> is preservation of freedom of speech in these
> newsgroups, and freedom from intimidation and
> control from fanatics like "digger" "Minatti" etc.
You have the freedom to ignore and killfile.
Whilst at Google, I uncovered an old sig file of mine. I brought it back
here for your enjoyment.
--
Sandy
"Desperate Dan" Kettler wrote in reference to his
persistent linking of his website:
DK: I don't link _every_ discussion, or even
nearly every discussion. You are a jerk!
Death's Scarecrow
So, is wearing a dead cat on your head a prophylactic against NCAT?
ash
['SQUAWK! PJSF!']
Spamster
jfred wrote:
> Does Bruce Dan Kettler know that his ButtBuddy, Edmond Heinz Wollmann,
> recently tried to NCAT some of the posters here?
>
> For shame, Mr. Wollmann! Any more NCAT from you, and you might just end
> up on bDan's frothing Page O' Hate!
>
> BruDan does NOT STAND for NCAT from PSFs, ILKs, VICs*, SPINICS or PMAFAs
> with little more than GEDs!
>
> *Vile, evil cultists
>
LMAO!
Buckler
Well, I start here with several assumptions. First, If I were tasked
to fake a skull that would withstand some sort of DNA test and NO
other (e.g. microscopic analysis or spectrographic profiling), I'd
cast it from a substance that superficially resembles bone in texture
and color. There are several polymers and resins that would do. The
molding and casting would be the biggest pain; do-able certainly, but
the DNA would be the easy part. Ground human bone powder, if
available, could be added to the mix, likewise ground nail-clippings.
Blood serum or saliva could be included. The amounts wouldn't even
have to be that huge, since PCR amplification can take even a small
DNA sample, and replicate it to obtain the desired amount for testing.
Please note that I'm not specifically addressing the skull you pointed
to. I have never seen it. I have no information regarding any testing
that may or may not have been performed on it. It may be a fake, then
again it may not be. I'm just hypothesizing about what I *could* do if
I were suddenly siezed with the desire to insert DNA into a fake
skull. There may be other, better methods; this was just off the top
of my head.
Cheers,
DrPostman
with the prophecy wrote:
>jfred wrote:
>SNIP!
>
>The owner of page you cite, is going to pay me damages for copyright
>violation, defamation and harassment.
You threatened to do that in 1999. How does Kooktime translate to
real time?
Dr.Postman USPS, MBMC, BsD; "Disgruntled, But Unarmed"
Member,Board of Directors of afa-b, SKEP-TI-CULT® member #15-51506-253.
You can email me at: jamie_eckles(at)hotmail.com
"The cover of night frees the Daughters of Eve from their inhibitions,
so that they may better receive Batmanuel's message of love."
-Batmanuel
DanKettler
The history of the alt.fan.art-bell newsgroup:
http://www.psicounsel.com/afabinfo.html
==============================================
NewAge Skeptic (Sandy Sprong)
news1.bloor.is
12dc6cf53ab2750
Message-ID: <3C30B972...@despammed.com>
> > > Ben Hogan wrote:
> > > > Good post. I'm amazed at the lenghts the
> > > > skeptics will go to to try to intimidate
> > > > people into not posting. <snip>
<snip>
> > The actual issue is NET CENSORSHIP AND TERRORISM (NCAT)
> > documented here...
> <snipped commercial URL>
NET CENSORSHIP AND TERRORISM (NCAT)
replaced: http://www.psicounsel.com/discsens.html
The constant reference of my citing
URL pages as "commerical," "spam"
etc. is nothing but parroting. Any
fool can parrot the propaganda they
read on USENET.
More on allegations of "spam" here...
http://www.psicounsel.com/spamans1.html
<snip>
NAS: > > > What is presented as 'evidence' of the
NAS: > > > paranormal is no more than belief.
DK: > > There is evidence that you have
DK: > > completely ignored... <snip>
> > These web pages deal with evidence of the paranormal:
> <snipped commercial URL>
> Referring to your own site as authority
> doesn't impress anyone.
NAS, Sandy Sprong, or whatever you want to be
today, I don't refer to my own site as authority.
I will repeat the URLs:
http://www.psicounsel.com/scistudy.html
http://www.psicounsel.com/faqevid.html
Again and again, for years, you comment
on another's URL reference, or another's
statement, with complete error about what
was put forth by the other person.
From that often repeated act, any rational
person can see you are obviously a fool.
See GOOGLE for past posts...
http://groups.google.com/advanced_group_search
So when I write:
DK: > > There is evidence that you have
DK: > > completely ignored... <snip>
...you proved it here, in this post,
again. Had you looked at the pages, you
would know it was not MY evidence,
but that of other people: scientists.
> > BH: > > The best thing that I've found, is
> > BH: > > to simply ignore the debunkers.
> > That, to a great extent, is a good idea. I
> > could go into greater detail about that, but
> > it's a complicated issue and I've commented
> > previously. See GOOGLE archives, and links
> > from...
http://www.psicounsel.com/news/index.html
DK: BTW, see "the truth" reference
DK: from the above for UFO data
NAS: <snip> You can't resist any opportunity
NAS: to spew your screed on netcopping and
NAS: spamming your web shite.
DK: See, there you go again. Do you know
DK: what the intelligence level of a parrot
DK: is? Parrots don't think of what they say.
DK: Parrots just repeat what they hear. That's
DK: what you are doing now, repeating the
DK: idiocy of others you read on USENET.
NAS: > > > Statements such as 'there is in fact
> > > a great likelihood' or 'mounds of evidence'
> > > are sure to draw skepticism.
DK: > > Again, this is not the issue. Comments of a skeptical
> > nature in alt.paranormal and alt.alien.visitors are not
> > the issue. Such comments from real skeptics would
> > probably be ignored. The problem is NCAT.
NAS: This newsgroup is a public forum for
NAS: discussion of the paranormal, both
NAS: pro and con.
DK: I never disagreed that if people want
to discuss both sides, no rule, or law, says
they cannot in alt.paranormal. It's not
recommended, but no-one can stop such
discussion. For further details on this
recommendation, see...
alt.paranormal FAQ - CHARTER
http://www.psicounsel.com/altparfaq.html
NAS: It is not the private domain of proponents
regardless of your and other's effort to
make it so.
DK: I never tried to make it a "private domain."
You are an idiot for saying I did try.
As I've clearly stated, I'd like to stop
NET CENSORSHIP AND TERRORISM (NCAT). That would
serve to encourage participation
from proponents, whereas up until
now, at least, proponents have been
frightened off.
DK: It's OTHER proponents who have failed to
educate themselves as to how they can
make changes, and it's OTHER proponents
who are now reaping the consequences.
DK: If OTHER proponents wish to make
changes, let THEM do so...
It's not up to me.
It's not up to Wollmann, all by himself.
It's not up to Luci, all by herself.
It's up to a multitude getting
together, and communicating with
one another in private.
HOW TO RECLAIM NEWSGROUPS
http://www.psicounsel.com/howtore.html
NAS: <snip> Your continuos effort to discourage
NAS: skepticism...
DK: There is no such effort, so
DK: the remainder of your statement
DK: is irrelevant.
DK: I have clearly stated the marked difference
DK: between skeptics and anti-paranormal,
DK: anti-astrology, and anti-ufo fanatics.
DK: I do want to discourage
DK: fanaticism in alt.paranormal, yes, but
DK: not skepticism.
DK: In nearly any search engine, type...
" skeptics what they do and why " [SWTDAW]
DK: ...and you will see the difference.
DK: Skeptics wish to discuss.
DK: Fanatics wish to censor, intimidate,
DK: and control. This happens both
DK: on, and off, the net. See links
DK: from SWTDAW.
DK: You are obviously not a skeptic.
NAS: > > > We've all seen enough fuzzy photos,
> > > jerky video, third party
> > > hearsay, and allegations of
> > > government conspiracies to
> > > last a lifetime.
DK: > > If you were not a fanatic, you would
> > continue your comments in sci.skeptic,
> > and laugh with those of similar views.
NAS: > Again another attempt to regulate.
DK: It's an observation. It's an opinion.
DK: When you look at how religious fanatics
DK: act in real life, you can see the
DK: similarity with what you do.
DK: A religious person just meets with
DK: those of like mind, in a church, or
DK: home. A religious fanatic goes to
DK: everyone's house they can, to
DK: "save" people.
DK: You are trying to "save" people.
<snip>
> > If not a fanatic, you would not, while
> > not being provoked, personally deride
> > proponents of these subjects.
> Its not derision bDan.
Parroting, again? I see the "bDan"
which someone else thought up. Can
you think, even?
What do you call CONTINUOUS
participation in a thread titled:
"Flagship is an idiot"
That's "derision," fool.
The fact is, you are an idiot. I've
shown evidence for that fact again
and again. For years you have written
like an idiot. See GOOGLE for examples.
The significant difference between
me calling you an idiot, and you and
the other sick folks particpating
in alt.paranormal, is that I show REAL,
logical, and actual evidence that you
are an idiot. All you fools do is call
people names like "idiot," "kook" etc.
I've even quoted the dictionary regarding
that word: idiot.
Do a keyword search in GOOGLE, and find
all my posts where I use the word "idiot."
<snip>
I really don't want to waste any more of
my time reading your garbage, so I snipped
it without reading. The obvious facts I've
cited above are enough to discredit, in
the mind of any rational person, whatever
you wrote that I did not read.
Spamster
DanKettler wrote:
> The history of the alt.fan.art-bell newsgroup:
>
>
Yawn.
Lou Minatti®
> "Flagship is an idiot"
That's a big PKB, Bruce.
NewAge Skeptic
DanKettler wrote:
>
> The history of the alt.fan.art-bell newsgroup:
>
> http://www.psicounsel.com/afabinfo.html
>
> ==============================================
>
> NewAge Skeptic (Sandy Sprong)
>
> news1.bloor.is
> 12dc6cf53ab2750
>
> Message-ID: <3C30B972...@despammed.com>
>
> > > > Ben Hogan wrote:
>
> > > > > Good post. I'm amazed at the lenghts the
> > > > > skeptics will go to to try to intimidate
> > > > > people into not posting. <snip>
>
> <snip>
>
> > > The actual issue is NET CENSORSHIP AND TERRORISM (NCAT)
> > > documented here...
>
> > <snipped commercial URL>
>
> replaced:
<and snipped again>
> The constant reference of my citing
> URL pages as "commerical," "spam"
> etc. is nothing but parroting. Any
> fool can parrot the propaganda they
> read on USENET.
Sorry bDan but it my own personal observation that you cannot discuss
without inserting a multitude of links to your page. One simply needs to
read one of your posts to see that. This thread is just an example. The
fact that others have made comments on this does not mean anyone is
parroting. You'll recall I made an issue of this about a year and half
ago. Your attitude then is the same as it is now.
Before you can snip it as my sig file, here's what you wrote then:
DK: I don't link _every_ discussion, or even
nearly every discussion. You are a jerk!
That statement was not truthful then nor is it now.
Your web page is commercial. You hawk your supposed psychic services,
pills that have been banned, and who knows what else. There is also an
abundance of ad banners that I assume trigger a misniscule commission
per hit. Whatever original content is there is mostly your own opinion,
the same one you give time and again here on Usenet. Its worthless to me
here, so why go there. I did once try a find a link you had referred but
gave up trying to sort through navigation links that went nowhere.
> More on allegations of "spam" here...
<snipped commercial URL>
You put them up Danno and I take them down.
> <snip>
>
> NAS: > > > What is presented as 'evidence' of the
> NAS: > > > paranormal is no more than belief.
>
> DK: > > There is evidence that you have
> DK: > > completely ignored... <snip>
>
> > > These web pages deal with evidence of the paranormal:
>
> > <snipped commercial URL>
>
> > Referring to your own site as authority
> > doesn't impress anyone.
>
> NAS, Sandy Sprong, or whatever you want to be
> today, I don't refer to my own site as authority.
>
> I will repeat the URLs:
<snipped commercial URLs>
And I'll take them down again. I would much prefer you refer me directly
to authority if that's what your trying to do.
> Again and again, for years, you comment
> on another's URL reference, or another's
> statement, with complete error about what
> was put forth by the other person.
As I wrote earlier (yes of course, you snipped that), I've only been
posting to Usenet since late 1999. Hardly qualifies for "again and again
for years" does it. As for my comments on URLs presented by others, I
don't believe I'll dignify your statement with a reply, other than to
write that you should wait for Flaggy's new research page. I'm sure
there'll be a plethora of quality links there.
> From that often repeated act, any rational
> person can see you are obviously a fool.
If that is your observation then you must be the fool because rational
people do not think that.
> See GOOGLE for past posts...
>
> http://groups.google.com/advanced_group_search
>
> So when I write:
>
> DK: > > There is evidence that you have
> DK: > > completely ignored... <snip>
>
> ...you proved it here, in this post,
> again. Had you looked at the pages, you
> would know it was not MY evidence,
> but that of other people: scientists.
I believe the topic was Ben Hogan message. What scientific link was
required?
> > > BH: > > The best thing that I've found, is
> > > BH: > > to simply ignore the debunkers.
>
> > > That, to a great extent, is a good idea. I
> > > could go into greater detail about that, but
> > > it's a complicated issue and I've commented
> > > previously. See GOOGLE archives, and links
> > > from...
Ah you snuck in another one...
<snipped>
> DK: BTW, see "the truth" reference
> DK: from the above for UFO data
We were not discussing UFOs. Getting into the New Year's spirit a little
early were you Dan?
> NAS: <snip> You can't resist any opportunity
> NAS: to spew your screed on netcopping and
> NAS: spamming your web shite.
>
> DK: See, there you go again. Do you know
> DK: what the intelligence level of a parrot
> DK: is? Parrots don't think of what they say.
> DK: Parrots just repeat what they hear. That's
> DK: what you are doing now, repeating the
> DK: idiocy of others you read on USENET.
Already addressed.
> NAS: > > > Statements such as 'there is in fact
> > > > a great likelihood' or 'mounds of evidence'
> > > > are sure to draw skepticism.
>
> DK: > > Again, this is not the issue. Comments of a skeptical
> > > nature in alt.paranormal and alt.alien.visitors are not
> > > the issue. Such comments from real skeptics would
> > > probably be ignored. The problem is NCAT.
>
> NAS: This newsgroup is a public forum for
> NAS: discussion of the paranormal, both
> NAS: pro and con.
>
> DK: I never disagreed that if people want
> to discuss both sides, no rule, or law, says
> they cannot in alt.paranormal. It's not
> recommended, but no-one can stop such
> discussion. For further details on this
> recommendation, see...
<snipped commercial URL>
There is no charter.
> NAS: It is not the private domain of proponents
> regardless of your and other's effort to
> make it so.
>
> DK: I never tried to make it a "private domain."
Really. What is the function of an overseer?
> You are an idiot for saying I did try.
>
> As I've clearly stated, I'd like to stop
> NET CENSORSHIP AND TERRORISM (NCAT). That would
> serve to encourage participation
> from proponents, whereas up until
> now, at least, proponents have been
> frightened off.
I've already expressed my thoughts on this earlier.
> DK: It's OTHER proponents who have failed to
> educate themselves as to how they can
> make changes, and it's OTHER proponents
> who are now reaping the consequences.
If only they were all as smart as you eh bDan?
> DK: If OTHER proponents wish to make
> changes, let THEM do so...
>
> It's not up to me.
> It's not up to Wollmann, all by himself.
> It's not up to Luci, all by herself.
> It's up to a multitude getting
> together, and communicating with
> one another in private.
Its not up to anyone. Alt.paranormal is unmoderated.
<snipped commercial URL>
> NAS: <snip> Your continuos effort to discourage
> NAS: skepticism...
>
> DK: There is no such effort, so
> DK: the remainder of your statement
> DK: is irrelevant.
That's rich Dan. ROTFL. Doesn't warrant comment.
> DK: I have clearly stated the marked difference
> DK: between skeptics and anti-paranormal,
> DK: anti-astrology, and anti-ufo fanatics.
>
> DK: I do want to discourage
> DK: fanaticism in alt.paranormal, yes, but
> DK: not skepticism.
To you its all the same. You even get into it with paranormalists.
> DK: In nearly any search engine, type...
>
> " skeptics what they do and why " [SWTDAW]
>
> DK: ...and you will see the difference.
Ah yes..that ugly flame red page where uncle Dan sits you down and tells
you all about the bad skeptics.
> DK: Skeptics wish to discuss.
>
> DK: Fanatics wish to censor, intimidate,
> DK: and control. This happens both
> DK: on, and off, the net. See links
> DK: from SWTDAW.
Nice end around Dan on the referral to your site.
> DK: You are obviously not a skeptic.
You obviously wouldn't know the difference.
> NAS: > > > We've all seen enough fuzzy photos,
> > > > jerky video, third party
> > > > hearsay, and allegations of
> > > > government conspiracies to
> > > > last a lifetime.
>
> DK: > > If you were not a fanatic, you would
> > > continue your comments in sci.skeptic,
> > > and laugh with those of similar views.
But you're not trying to discourage skepticism in this NG right?
> NAS: > Again another attempt to regulate.
>
> DK: It's an observation. It's an opinion.
> DK: When you look at how religious fanatics
> DK: act in real life, you can see the
> DK: similarity with what you do.
>
> DK: A religious person just meets with
> DK: those of like mind, in a church, or
> DK: home. A religious fanatic goes to
> DK: everyone's house they can, to
> DK: "save" people.
I wouldn't know. I'm not religious.
> DK: You are trying to "save" people.
I've already commented on that as well. You saw fit to snip and not
address it.
> <snip>
>
> > > If not a fanatic, you would not, while
> > > not being provoked, personally deride
> > > proponents of these subjects.
>
> > Its not derision bDan.
>
> Parroting, again? I see the "bDan"
> which someone else thought up. Can
> you think, even?
Yes, I 'think' its rather catchy and will use it.
> What do you call CONTINUOUS
> participation in a thread titled:
>
> "Flagship is an idiot"
>
> That's "derision," fool.
And being the fool that you are you carry on without changing feet. That
thread was of Flaggy's own doing. Someone had challenged him to prove
that he is not an idiot. Flaggy bit and tried to prove the negative in
his own defense. I'll use your own words: SEE GOOGLE
> The fact is, you are an idiot. I've
> shown evidence for that fact again
> and again. For years you have written
> like an idiot. See GOOGLE for examples.
Stop it Dan. Its New Year's Eve and I have a party to go to. At this
rate I won't have stopped laughing by then.
> The significant difference between
> me calling you an idiot, and you and
> the other sick folks particpating
> in alt.paranormal, is that I show REAL,
> logical, and actual evidence that you
> are an idiot. All you fools do is call
> people names like "idiot," "kook" etc.
> I've even quoted the dictionary regarding
> that word: idiot.
Oh yes I remember that. It blew up in your face, as usual...Now stop
it...ROTFL
> Do a keyword search in GOOGLE, and find
> all my posts where I use the word "idiot."
Also already addressed.
> <snip>
>
> I really don't want to waste any more of
> my time reading your garbage, so I snipped
> it without reading. The obvious facts I've
> cited above are enough to discredit, in
> the mind of any rational person, whatever
> you wrote that I did not read.
If I were you I would have stopped here too. Why embarrass yourself any
further by trying to defend your dishonesty with post-editing and then
dealing with what Jack, your bud, thinks of your place in the paranormal
pecking order.
Like my new sig file bDan?
Flagship1 of the Paranormal
[Groups Removed]
sci.skeptic
ThePuppetMaster wrote:
>
> The lack of knowledge displayed by debunkers is quite outstanding. It gets
> up my nose when they claim that there is no evidence to support the ET /
> human hybridization program, when in fact there is ample.
>
> The best example of evidence to my knowledge is the 900 year old skull,
> found in Mexico some seventy years ago. Even as a child the skull's brain
> capacity was some 200cc larger than a normal human adults. The eye sockets
> are much wider and shallower than you would expect to see in a human and the
> neck attachment is much smaller. All consistent with a Grey / human hybrid.
>
> You can see the photos, forensic rendering and scientific analysis here.
>
> http://www.starchildproject.com/page-01.html
>
> Final proof will be the complete DNA analysis which hopefully will arrive
> some time in the new year.
>
> My money says Sir Arthur was right (again).
I have done a great deal of paranormal related research in relation
to paranormal alien visitation among other things of a similar subject.
I do however seem to hold a small amount of skepticism towards the
Starchild case among a few other issues.
Some issues relevant to the paranormal seem to generate a vast amount
of controversy. One may argue in the case of Starchild that the DNA
could be easily compared to that of a human whilst another person
arguing in favor of paranormal alien hybridization can argue that it
was just another type of human or a new race of human or perhaps another
forthcoming breed of human. Of course as this is a controversial issue
I do not argue conclusively either way. I do not however just assume that
its all fake, I have an open mind unlike some of our friends here.
I am however in agreement in the mounds of evidence piling up for
the possibility of alien visitation (as a whole). Of course people
can make up millions of excuses in attempt to try to explain stuff
away. What really counts is if they can actually refute the majority
of evidence being brought forward or not. There is much more then
just the few cases that happen to make their way onto the nightly
news. There are even the hoaxes (some of which I believe are deliberate
smoke screens) set up to distract attention away from paranormal related
research and to create more skepticism. I agree that one should keep an
open mind towards these subjects. We have mounds of people around the
world who are coming forward in relation to these paranormal issues
at hand.
The best thing to ask of people is to just decide for themselves. No
matter how much evidence there is of alien visitation as a whole, there
will always be the skeptics. There is little to do in terms of trying
to convert the skeptical extremists who troll these groups into going
against their own pre-determined and sometimes prejudicial viewpoints.
One can however present issues relevant to the paranormal in terms
of helping to spark some interesting but informative discussions such
as what you had been recently posting.
I do look forward to more of your posts here in alt.paranormal.
They are most certainly a breath of fresh air.
Happy New Year 2002!
--
Flagship1 of the Paranormal - Posting to Usenet since July-15-1997.
"Sometimes trolls take writings out of context or write pure lies
about people just to get them baited into flame-wars. You do not
have to address each and every lie that they make. Don't feed them!"
Official Website -----> http://www.flagship1.com
Official Usenet ID ---> paran...@flagship1.com
Official Newsgroup ---> news:alt.paranormal
Flagship1 of the Paranormal
[Groups Removed]
news.admin.net-abuse.usenet
DanKettler wrote:
>
[Snip]
>
> > What is presented as 'evidence' of the
> > paranormal is no more than belief.
>
> There is evidence that you have completely ignored.
> You also ignore what the post is about that you
> are allegedly responding to. You do this over
> and over, and GOOGLE archives show this as fact.
The practice of ignoring evidence rather then presenting
reasonable refutations for the said evidence is a common
practice by those who troll these groups. I agree with you
here, Dan. Trying to convince closed minded people of
paranormal phenomena as a waste of time. I would rather
be working with those who are interested in finding answers.
[Snip]
> > Statements such as 'there is in fact
> > a great likelihood' or 'mounds of evidence'
> > are sure to draw skepticism.
>
> Again, this is not the issue. Comments of a skeptical
> nature in alt.paranormal and alt.alien.visitors are not
> the issue. Such comments from real skeptics would
> probably be ignored. The problem is NCAT.
I have not just made the statement of "mounds of evidence"
I have presented links and everything. All of which were
repeatedly ignored by trolls. Claims that there is a little
noise on the video tape automatically means its a fake does
not qualify as a reasonable refutation to the evidence. Look
at CSETI's Disclosure Project. Look at the other things that
are being ignored. Then tell me that the "mounds of evidence"
do not exist. Repeated claims like this is one reason who I
no longer waste my time replying to or addressing trolls. When
if ever a reasonable argument is presented, I will address it.
On the 15th I will be launching a new section on my website which
will actually provide hundreds of "LINKS" to the mounds of evidence.
I could probably place an honest bet that it will be ignored as
well, except this time they will just be making fools of them
selves in their attempts at trying to just explain it all away.
[Snip]
> > Those
> > believers that do post (with few exceptions) will usually present their
> > beliefs as a statement of fact beyond reproach and then get indignant,
> > arrogant, and rude when asked to make their case beyond opinion.
>
> The only incidents of indignant response are
> when you jerks think that we MUST provide any
> evidence in alt.alien.visitors or alt.paranormal.
> Providing evidence in these newsgroups to so-called
> "skeptics" is not required, at all.
>
> No-one here has to "make their case" for you.
I agree. The only reason I post to usenet is for other
paranormalists to look into the material I present and
spark honest discussions about the said material. If
I wanted to try to convince skeptics, I would be
posting to sci.skeptic. When I present a post its on
an "AS IS" basis. One either takes it or leaves it.
[Snip]
> > The following is pasted from a post by Jack Sarfatti, a respected
> > scientist and considered to be a proponent of the paranormal by Kettler
> > and Flagship. Jack is critical of both extremes:
> >
> > "CSICOP is extremist on the anti-paranormal side. They are "True
> > Believers" as much as the kooky New Agey lite-minde, but supremely
> > arrogant, pro paranormal/UFO/ over unity zero point energy
> > anti-intellectual extremists with little education and still less
> > critical judgment. Neither extreme is to be trusted at face value."
> >
> > <snip>
>
> Neither I, nor Flagship, are part of any extreme.
> An extreme would be a believer with no critical
> thinking still intact. Our only strong issue
> is preservation of freedom of speech in these
> newsgroups, and freedom from intimidation and
> control from fanatics like "digger" "Minatti" etc.
I can agree with this statement as well. Though I no longer
reply directly to trolls, I am still willing to discuss it
when it is brought up from time to time by a legitimate
poster or newbie. When it comes to the paranormal one may
notice that in my thread I do not really draw any absolute
conclusions either positive nor negative in relation to some
of the issues I write. I often state them as "possibilities"
rather then just automatically asserting them as absolute fact.
I look at the evidence that is presented. This is what determines
it to be a "possibility" however I hold the understanding that
the evidence is still being researched and simply leave it up
to the readers to decide if or if not they wish to accept the
given piece of evidence as proof. I have been using this
posting pattern for years now. Of course just like yours,
my posts are spun out of context and my writings are taken to
falsely imply what was not originally intended in the original
post. Other times I have pure lies written about me. Yes I could
address each and every one of them, however all they do is just
keep reposting the lies. Hence I see no bother in wasting time
with the liars and the trolls. I instead engage in discussions
with honest posters. As for newbies, I always automatically assume
they are honest posters until their posting habits start
showing otherwise.
DrPostman
accordance with the prophecy wrote:
>
>The history of the alt.fan.art-bell newsgroup:
>
> http://www.psicounsel.com/afabinfo.html
>
If you are into revisionist history, and looking for a laugh.
Bruce is a bitter, angry control freak who cannot stand the
freedom to express ideas that exists on afa-b, and doesn't
understand the nature of the alt groups (leading to his crossposting
to groups that could care less about afa-b).
By all means, any of you who have not been to that web
page go take a look at it. Note the use of capitalization
and his attempt to elicit help to control afa-b. We once
caught him going to dozens of newsgroups asking for
help in taking over afa-b. Apparently he likes all the
negative attention and refuses to deal with his control
issues by placing posts like this repeatedly. Look in the
Google archives and see how many times he has posted
just this one. It boggles the mind why he won't just let
go and accept life on life's terms.
Welcome back, Idiot the Bruce, for your annual spanking on
afa-b.
DrPostman
in accordance with the prophecy wrote:
>The practice of ignoring evidence rather then presenting
>reasonable refutations for the said evidence is a common
>practice by those who troll these groups. I agree with you
>here, Dan. Trying to convince closed minded people of
>paranormal phenomena as a waste of time. I would rather
>be working with those who are interested in finding answers.
Especially when you post that Anthrax occurs in only two
labs in the world, confusing anthrax with smallpox. When
evidence was posted of your confusion you failed to have
the guts to admit that you made a mistake and attempted
to backpeddle. You have described yourself well in that
paragraph.
John Griffin
"Flagship1 of the Paranormal" <paran...@flagship1.com> wrote
>
> The practice of ignoring evidence rather then presenting
> reasonable refutations for the said evidence is a common
> practice by those who troll these groups. I agree with you
> here, Dan. Trying to convince closed minded people of
> paranormal phenomena as a waste of time. I would rather
> be working with those who are interested in finding answers.
You have never presented any evidence of anything at all.
Here's your chance to do it for the first time. Just fill in the blanks.
"I, Flagship1, have concluded that:"
[ insert one of your beliefs here ]
"The following evidence led me to this conclusion:"
[ insert your evidence here ]
Note: "Thirty thousand people can't be wrong" is not evidence. It's just a
1952 Buick advertisement.
Mr. Sweetness & Light
Edmond Wollmann wrote in message ...
>One of the most incoherent, bitter, spamming asshole kooks on Usenet wrote:
>
>>
>> The history of the alt.fan.art-bell newsgroup:
>>
>> http://www.psicouns
>
>
>
>Hey, fagboy, whaddya say to a spooge fest tonite?
>
>Your place or mine, old man?
'All my partners are of the highest quality old man.' - Edmo comes out of
the closet.
Hey Edmo! When you emerge from the closet, don't forget to shit out the
mothballs after you remove your head.
Mr. Sweetness & Light
DanKettler wrote in message
<3C31048B.42A16D82@kettlerenterprises_SEESIG.com>...
>
>The history of the alt.fan.art-bell newsgroup:
>
Brucie couldn't pick his nose if you gave him a map.
Why would anyone believe your version? You mangle attributions and cherry
pick bits of posts. Why are you adding NANAU, dipshit? The only abuse is
yours, Brucie.
ThePuppetMaster
Michael Davis <mdav...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:3C2FC255...@ix.netcom.com...
Please clarify. Do you accept something because people say it is true or
don't you? In this thread you have said
'By your logic all you have to do to "prove" the skull is an alien hybrid is
fool 12 gullible people into believing it. Science doesn't work that way.'
and
'I accept nothing as true that hasn't passed peer review'
All docterines of the Roman Catholic Church have to pass a similar 'peer
review' process. Are they also correct?
> > but refute others when they are told
> > they are false.
>
> A claim that something is false is just another claim. I demand proof for
those
> sorts of claims too.
>
> > E.g. the Copernican view was ridiculed right into the
> > seventeenth century. The only way of establishing the truth is to
examine
> > all the evidence, not just the evidence that fits your own
preconceptions.
>
> Ignorance of history noted. It wasn't the skeptics who were ridiculing the
> Copernican system, it was the mindless believers in church dogma. It was
> skeptics like Kepler and Galileo who were championing the Copernican
system
> because there was good, solid evidence to back it up, but there was no
evidence
> to support the Earth centered system.
>
Ignorance of history noted. In fact the Aristotle's Ptolemaic system was the
scientific model beeing used in the seventeenth century. Skeptics, as they
do so often, resisted any change to their world view. Other examples of
closed minded idiocy by skeptics are 'Iron ships are impossible. Iron does
not float.' and 'meteorites do not exist. how can rocks fall from the sky?'
I, on the other hand, will be compelled trust the interpretation of experts
in the field. If after analysis they say the skull is a deformed human I
will believe them. If they say the skull is not I may have a little doubt
and ask for a re-test. I would not dismiss their findings as shit and claim
the skull was a birth defect.
> --- Snip ---
>
> > For me the verdict is still out on this one. As you say the skull could
be
> > fake or a deformed human. On the other hand there is a chance that the
skull
> > is an ET hybrid whether you like it or not. I'd like to know the truth
> > either way.
>
> The verdict will be out forever. The lunatic fringe and the carnival
hucksters
> have latched onto this thing. They will never let the issue die. They will
keep
> stirring up nonexistent controversy around this skull as long as it fits
their
> agenda or there is a buck to be made off of the rubes.
>
No, the people who own the skull are trying to find out the truth, whatever
that may be. The trouble is you will only accept one outcome, as you are not
interested in the truth.
> --
> The Evil Michael DavisT
ThePuppetMaster
Marsha <sha...@astroinsulting.con> wrote in message
news:l03v2ukvt93ehmgdf...@4ax.com...
> Edmond Wollmann <E...@astroconsulting.com> wrote:
>
> >Michael Davis wrote:
> >
> >> Uber Kook maximus bDanKettler wrote:
> >
> >More name calling, you are obsessed with name calling aren't you?
>
> You are a seriously deluded shitstain, Wollmann. You're the one that's
> obsessed with name calling. Why must you project your silly impotece
> on usenet?
>
Just read that statement. First sentence -
"You are a seriously deluded shitstain, Wollmann."
Second sentence -
"You're the one that's obsessed with name calling"
How is this level of foolishness possible?
> >
> >> (NGs modified)
>
> metapsych added.
>
> >
> >Repaired once again.
> >
> >> Hey. bDAN, WTF are you and your butt buddy the Wollkook doing both
> >> suddenly polluting the UFO NGs with your whiny drivel?
> >
> >You want to censor us?
>
> Nope, he is simply pointing out your buffoonery. Comprende?
Michael Davis
(NGs modified)
Hey. bDAN, WTF are you and your butt buddy the Wollkook doing both
suddenly polluting the UFO NGs with your whiny drivel? Did you both get
your kooky asses driven out of the astrology groups by the NCATing ILK
and PSFs? Gee, that's a real shame. If you think you can hang out here
and lick your wounds in peace though you've got another thing coming.
We have NCAT to burn around here, baby!
> How to Reclaim Newsgroups -- see *** below.
Why bother? It sure as hell hasn't worked for you. alt.paranornal and
alt.astrology have been OWNED by the skeptics ever since you made the
mistake of inviting them over from sci.skeptic so you could "trounce"
them in debate over the paranormal. DOOP! That was a blunder of
monumental proportions, wasn't it spankard? Now you've got skeptic boot
prints all over your rosy red backside and you are the laughingstock of
Usenet. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
> ThePuppetMaster
>
> <tim...@hotmail.com>
>
> Message-ID: <a0imk0$83b$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>
>
> wrote:
>
> > Michael Davis <mdav...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>
> TPM: ...they claim that there is no evidence to support
> the ET / human hybridization program, when in fact
> there is ample.
> DK: Yes, good evidence but no conclusive proof.
All we have good evidence of here is your kooky reformatting of this
post. That's unacceptable, bDAN. You *WILL* leave the formatting intact
or else you will be whining to yourself. We are not going to have any
real discussion until you learn to reply correctly.
--- Snip kooky reformatting ---
> DK: This is how to correct the situation...
>
> http://www.psicons.com/howtospam.html <<<URL edited to reflect
> reality
Now, now, bDAN! None of that. No spamming URLs to your banner laden
abortion of a commercial web site. It's not as if your drivel is in any
way authoritative anyway, it's just more of your usual hate filled
bluster.
--- Snip kooky reformatting ---
> http://www.psicons.com/new_scams/index.html <<<URL edited to reflect
> reality
Not again! Bad kook! No rubes for you!
> Click near the top at "the truth"
"The truth" is nowhere to be found on your abortion of a web site. Are
you still hawking those bogus anti aging pills that got you into
trouble with the feds? I'd check your horrible site myself but I don't
want to increment your page view counter and earn you $0.002. You don't
deserve it.
--- Snip kooky reformatting ---
> DK: Like many other PSEUDO-SKEPTIC-FANATICS, you
What is a "PSEUDO-SKEPTIC-FANATIC" you ask? It is a silly made up
phrase used exclusively by kooks.
--- Snip kooky reformatting ---
> TPM: [There was a] 900 year old skull,
The only thing you are an expert on, bDAN, is running a 1-900 psychic
phone scam. By the way, you never did answer my question about exactly
what your "tested, selected" psychic powers are? Please do tell.
--- Snip kooky reformatting ---
> skepticult http://www.psicons.com/WHAAAAAAAAAAAA!<<<URL edited to
> reflect reality
--
The Evil Michael Davis™
Ruler For Life of AAR
http://mdavis19.tripod.com
http://skepticult.org Member #264-70198-536
Flaggy random killfile member #33 1/3
"No, folks, this "Davis" character is NOT A TROLL! He's for real. He
is not looking for this response from me. I've been on USENET a long
time, so I know what a troll is, and this guy is _not_ one of them." -
Dan Kettler telling the truth, for a change.
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Path: news.sol.net!spool1-nwblwi.newsops.execpc.com!newsfeeds.sol.net!news-out.visi.com!hermes.visi.com!nnxp1.twtelecom.net!newsfeed.cs.wisc.edu!enews.sgi.com!news-xfer.nuri.net!news-hub.kaist.ac.kr!feeder.kornet.net!news1.kornet.net!u-n-c-a-n-c-e-l-l-e-r
From: Michael Davis <mdav...@ix.netcom.com>
Newsgroups: alt.config,comp.lang.c,alt.usenet.kooks
Subject: cmsg cancel <3C2F728C...@ix.netcom.com>
Control: cancel <3C2F728C...@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 06:05:38 GMT
Organization: A poorly-installed InterNetNews site
Lines: 2
Message-ID: <cancel.3C2F7...@ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 211.57.49.2
X-Trace: news2.kornet.net 1009790421 17167 211.57.49.2 (31 Dec 2001 09:20:21 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: use...@news2.kornet.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 09:20:21 +0000 (UTC)
X-NETCOM-Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 05:46:03 GMT
X-No-Archive: yes
Comment: Anarchy! Fuck You!
X-Commentary: I love NewsAgent 1.10, Sandblaster Build 74 (19 March 1999) and the Polaris Cancel Engine V. 6.1
X-Unacanc3l: yes
This message was cancelled from within Mozilla...not
NewAge Skeptic
Flagship1 of the Paranormal wrote:
>
> Re: NET CENSORSHIP AND TERRORISM (NCAT) <was> Re: How to Reclaim Newsgroups...
>
> [Groups Removed]
> news.admin.net-abuse.usenet
>
> DanKettler wrote:
> >
> [Snip]
> >
> > > What is presented as 'evidence' of the
> > > paranormal is no more than belief.
> >
> > There is evidence that you have completely ignored.
> > You also ignore what the post is about that you
> > are allegedly responding to. You do this over
> > and over, and GOOGLE archives show this as fact.
>
> The practice of ignoring evidence rather then presenting
> reasonable refutations for the said evidence is a common
> practice by those who troll these groups.
The practice of presenting hearsay, beliefs, musings, etc. and holding
it up as evidence is a common practice by those who promote the
paranormal.
> I agree with you
> here, Dan. Trying to convince closed minded people of
> paranormal phenomena as a waste of time.
It never ceases to amaze me how closed minded individuals hang that
label on others. I've moved my sig up so you can't miss it:
"The ignorant reach erroneous conclusions
and make unfortunate choices, and their
incompetence robs them of the ability to
realize it."
> I would rather
> be working with those who are interested in finding answers.
If you mean paranormalists I think you'll be working alone.
> [Snip]
>
> > > Statements such as 'there is in fact
> > > a great likelihood' or 'mounds of evidence'
> > > are sure to draw skepticism.
> >
> > Again, this is not the issue. Comments of a skeptical
> > nature in alt.paranormal and alt.alien.visitors are not
> > the issue. Such comments from real skeptics would
> > probably be ignored. The problem is NCAT.
>
> I have not just made the statement of "mounds of evidence"
> I have presented links and everything.
Yes of course you have. Genuine ghosts and everything.
> All of which were
> repeatedly ignored by trolls.
Illogical. How can they laugh at them if they didn't at least look at
them?
> Claims that there is a little
> noise on the video tape automatically means its a fake does
> not qualify as a reasonable refutation to the evidence.
But its amazing how only footage of paranormal phenomena has noise on
it.
> Look
> at CSETI's Disclosure Project.
Yes...and?
> Look at the other things that
> are being ignored.
Blanket statement. Please be more specific.
> Then tell me that the "mounds of evidence"
> do not exist.
So far the mound is not even a mole hill.
> Repeated claims like this is one reason who I
> no longer waste my time replying to or addressing trolls.
Those who disagree are not trolls. That label is your copout to duck the
issue. How very paranormal of you. Its a common practice of those of
your ilk.
> When
> if ever a reasonable argument is presented, I will address it.
Reasonable arguments are presented. You just duck them.
> On the 15th I will be launching a new section on my website which
> will actually provide hundreds of "LINKS" to the mounds of evidence.
> I could probably place an honest bet that it will be ignored as
> well, except this time they will just be making fools of them
> selves in their attempts at trying to just explain it all away.
Quantity is not quality. How about we present you with a mammoth list of
skeptical URLs. I would bet that you'd ignore them, because you have in
the past. Don't be throwing stones Flaggy.
> [Snip]
>
> > > Those
> > > believers that do post (with few exceptions) will usually present their
> > > beliefs as a statement of fact beyond reproach and then get indignant,
> > > arrogant, and rude when asked to make their case beyond opinion.
> >
> > The only incidents of indignant response are
> > when you jerks think that we MUST provide any
> > evidence in alt.alien.visitors or alt.paranormal.
> > Providing evidence in these newsgroups to so-called
> > "skeptics" is not required, at all.
> >
> > No-one here has to "make their case" for you.
>
> I agree. The only reason I post to usenet is for other
> paranormalists to look into the material I present and
> spark honest discussions about the said material.
But its amazing how none of them are interested in your incredible
assertions.
> If
> I wanted to try to convince skeptics, I would be
> posting to sci.skeptic. When I present a post its on
> an "AS IS" basis. One either takes it or leaves it.
How typically paranormal of you. Your posts normally include "it is in
fact", "great likelihoods", "mounds of evidence", etc.
Then you expect others to accept it at face value, "AS IS"? Have you
ever considered prefacing your paranormal musings with "it is my
opinion", "my belief", or something to that affect, because after all
that's all it is?
> [Snip]
>
> > > The following is pasted from a post by Jack Sarfatti, a respected
> > > scientist and considered to be a proponent of the paranormal by Kettler
> > > and Flagship. Jack is critical of both extremes:
> > >
> > > "CSICOP is extremist on the anti-paranormal side. They are "True
> > > Believers" as much as the kooky New Agey lite-minde, but supremely
> > > arrogant, pro paranormal/UFO/ over unity zero point energy
> > > anti-intellectual extremists with little education and still less
> > > critical judgment. Neither extreme is to be trusted at face value."
> > >
> > > <snip>
> >
> > Neither I, nor Flagship, are part of any extreme.
> > An extreme would be a believer with no critical
> > thinking still intact. Our only strong issue
> > is preservation of freedom of speech in these
> > newsgroups, and freedom from intimidation and
> > control from fanatics like "digger" "Minatti" etc.
>
> I can agree with this statement as well.
What part do you agree with? I think Jack has explained it quite well
with, "supremely arrogant. pro paranormal/UFO/.."
Guess you'll have to take Jack off your list of "endorsed" posters.
He'll be pissed.
> Though I no longer
> reply directly to trolls, I am still willing to discuss it
> when it is brought up from time to time by a legitimate
> poster or newbie.
Then why this post. Is this not an indirect reply to someone you
consider a troll?
> When it comes to the paranormal one may
> notice that in my thread I do not really draw any absolute
> conclusions either positive nor negative in relation to some
> of the issues I write.
That is "in fact" not true.
> I often state them as "possibilities"
> rather then just automatically asserting them as absolute fact.
See above.
> I look at the evidence that is presented. This is what determines
> it to be a "possibility" however I hold the understanding that
> the evidence is still being researched and simply leave it up
> to the readers to decide if or if not they wish to accept the
> given piece of evidence as proof.
Speaking of research. How are you coming along with that Fox issue on
Israeli UFO footage. How about the UFO over Manhattan? You promised
research on this. Where is it?
> I have been using this
> posting pattern for years now.
And are still not getting the message.
> Of course just like yours,
> my posts are spun out of context and my writings are taken to
> falsely imply what was not originally intended in the original
> post.
Not so. Your writings are taken for what they are. Your problem is that
you can't defend your position and then try to back peddle to change the
meaning of your post. So who is trying to falsely imply what?
> Other times I have pure lies written about me.
I know you're only parroting your bud, but can you be more specific?
> Yes I could
> address each and every one of them, however all they do is just
> keep reposting the lies.
Because they aren't lies.
> Hence I see no bother in wasting time
> with the liars and the trolls. I instead engage in discussions
> with honest posters.
Perhaps you could list some (just a few will do).
> As for newbies, I always automatically assume
> they are honest posters until their posting habits start
> showing otherwise.
The overseer has spoken. Is this like a trial period?
> Happy New Year 2002!
And you.
--
Robert ASF.
I have heard complaints that the translation washed down
what he was saying as if there was some doubt to his ordering
the attacks, when in fact he was a lot clearer then the US gov
translation claimed he was saying.
Just Thought I Should Mention It
NewAge Skeptic
Flagship1 of the Paranormal wrote:
>
> Re: alien hybridization program
>
> [Groups Removed]
> sci.skeptic
Replaced
> ThePuppetMaster wrote:
> >
> > The lack of knowledge displayed by debunkers is quite outstanding. It gets
> > up my nose when they claim that there is no evidence to support the ET /
> > human hybridization program, when in fact there is ample.
<snip>
> I do look forward to more of your posts here in alt.paranormal.
> They are most certainly a breath of fresh air.
I can understand why you'd like the post. Does the opening salvo look
familiar? Note the words "in fact"?
--
Sandy
----------------------------------------
The ignorant reach erroneous conclusions
and make unfortunate choices, and their
incompetence robs them of the ability to
realize it. - Kruger
----------------------------------------
Skep-ti-cult Member 202-84299-9
"Voyage of the Flagship Paranormal"
http://members.home.net/thesandmancan/
Michael Davis
You conveniently forgot that I also said "and been proven by multiple
independent researchers." Peer review is a nice Bozo filter but it isn't the
last word. It's all about repeatable results. Until multiple independent
researchers all come up with the same results the jury is still out.
> > > but refute others when they are told
> > > they are false.
> >
> > A claim that something is false is just another claim. I demand proof for
> those
> > sorts of claims too.
> >
> > > E.g. the Copernican view was ridiculed right into the
> > > seventeenth century. The only way of establishing the truth is to
> examine
> > > all the evidence, not just the evidence that fits your own
> preconceptions.
> >
> > Ignorance of history noted. It wasn't the skeptics who were ridiculing the
> > Copernican system, it was the mindless believers in church dogma. It was
> > skeptics like Kepler and Galileo who were championing the Copernican
> system
> > because there was good, solid evidence to back it up, but there was no
> evidence
> > to support the Earth centered system.
> >
>
> Ignorance of history noted. In fact the Aristotle's Ptolemaic system was the
> scientific model beeing used in the seventeenth century.
Not by Copernicus, Kepler and Galileo, among others, so you are clearly wrong.
> Skeptics, as they
> do so often, resisted any change to their world view.
So you say, but I have yet to you produce some evidence to that effect. All you
have done so far is repeat the same bogus arguments used by woo-woos for
decades. I expect you to drag out the tired, old, incorrect argument about
skeptics and Columbus next.
> Other examples of
> closed minded idiocy by skeptics are 'Iron ships are impossible. Iron does
> not float.' and 'meteorites do not exist. how can rocks fall from the sky?'
Sounds reasonable in a time when buoyancy and and the nature of meteorites were
not yet understood. Note that there are no skeptics arguing those points today,
so your argument that skeptics resist change is clearly wrong. All we require is
some hard evidence.
Besides, there are far more examples of non skeptics believing in things that
turned out to be wrong than skeptics not beliving in things that turned out to
be correct.
I haven't done that. No "expert" has come out with a finding that the skull is
anything other than human. All we have is a phony promise from a con man that
future tests will somehow prove the skull isn't human. Oh please. I have already
explained why it would be impossible to prove the skull isn't human, unless it
turns out to be a complete hoax that is.
> > --- Snip ---
> >
> > > For me the verdict is still out on this one. As you say the skull could
> be
> > > fake or a deformed human. On the other hand there is a chance that the
> skull
> > > is an ET hybrid whether you like it or not. I'd like to know the truth
> > > either way.
> >
> > The verdict will be out forever. The lunatic fringe and the carnival
> hucksters
> > have latched onto this thing. They will never let the issue die. They will
> keep
> > stirring up nonexistent controversy around this skull as long as it fits
> their
> > agenda or there is a buck to be made off of the rubes.
> >
>
> No, the people who own the skull are trying to find out the truth, whatever
> that may be.
Do you really believe that? Are you truly that gullible? Silly question. You are
a saucer head, of course you are that gullible. Barnum would have loved you.
Keep in mind though that there are more people involved than just the owners of
the skull. There are legions of idiots just like you making claims in relation
to the skull like:
"The lack of knowledge displayed by debunkers is quite outstanding. It gets
up my nose when they claim that there is no evidence to support the ET /
human hybridization program, when in fact there is ample."
Thing is, this skull isn't evidence of anything yet. But a popular myth has
already been built around it and it will now never die. Even if DNA tests show
nothing out of the ordinary and the owners retract their outrageous claims, the
conspiracy theorists will just jump in and claim the real "TRVTH" is being
suppressed and fan the flames of woo-woo paranoid delusion keeping the myth
alive and well.
> The trouble is you will only accept one outcome, as you are not
> interested in the truth.
I am interested in the truth. The problem is that your methods don't lead to the
truth.
--
The Evil Michael Davis™
Ruler For Life of AAR
http://mdavis19.tripod.com
http://skepticult.org Member #264-70198-536
Flaggy random killfile member #33 1/3
"A habit of basing convictions upon evidence, and of giving to them only that
degree or certainty which the evidence warrants, would, if it became general,
cure most of the ills from which the world suffers." - Bertrand Russell
Knowledge is Freedom
Knowledge is Freedom
wrote:
Ever wonder why the greys look just like human fetuses?
Wonder no more. They made themselves in *our* image by culling human
fetuses in order to manufacture their bodies.
There is no alien hybridization program. Why in the world would they want
to co mingle biologically with humans? The aliens have nothing but contempt
for the human species, but they sure need our bodies. Humankind is just a
resource for aliens, that's all.
And the aliens benefit from the cover up.
indigocoatl
<snip>
>>
>> The actual issue is NET CENSORSHIP AND TERRORISM (NCAT)
OHMIGAWD!
I finally learn what NCAT means!! ROFL!!!
since I freely mark threads "ignore", I do miss a lot here.
so it's a relief to learn what something really means!
Woohoo!
Happy New year and all that stuff...
J
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Julie and Geno, sweethearts forever
Geno Luker, April 29, 1985 - June 14, 2001
"The best place to bury a good dog
is in the heart of his master."
Spamster
indigocoatl wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Dec 2001 10:36:26 -0500, Spamster <bo...@bogus.int> wrote:
>
> <snip>
> >>
> >> The actual issue is NET CENSORSHIP AND TERRORISM (NCAT)
>
> OHMIGAWD!
>
> I finally learn what NCAT means!! ROFL!!!
>
> since I freely mark threads "ignore", I do miss a lot here.
> so it's a relief to learn what something really means!
>
> Woohoo!
>
> Happy New year and all that stuff...
>
Hehe! Happy happy!
John Baker
"ThePuppetMaster" <tim...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a0ghbi$uvl$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
> The lack of knowledge displayed by debunkers is quite outstanding. It gets
> up my nose when they claim that there is no evidence to support the ET /
> human hybridization program, when in fact there is ample.
>
> found in Mexico some seventy years ago. Even as a child the skull's brain
> capacity was some 200cc larger than a normal human adults. The eye sockets
> are much wider and shallower than you would expect to see in a human and
the
> neck attachment is much smaller. All consistent with a Grey / human
hybrid.
Hasn't the fact that an ET/human hybrid would almost certainly be a
biological impossibility even entered your mind?
>
> You can see the photos, forensic rendering and scientific analysis here.
>
> http://www.starchildproject.com/page-01.html
>
> Final proof will be the complete DNA analysis which hopefully will arrive
> some time in the new year.
>
> My money says Sir Arthur was right (again).
>
> Seasons greetings,
>
> ThePuppetMaster
>
>
>
Buckler
wrote:
>
>"ThePuppetMaster" <tim...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:a0ghbi$uvl$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
>> The lack of knowledge displayed by debunkers is quite outstanding. It gets
>> up my nose when they claim that there is no evidence to support the ET /
>> human hybridization program, when in fact there is ample.
>>
>> The best example of evidence to my knowledge is the 900 year old skull,
>> found in Mexico some seventy years ago. Even as a child the skull's brain
>> capacity was some 200cc larger than a normal human adults. The eye sockets
>> are much wider and shallower than you would expect to see in a human and
>the
>> neck attachment is much smaller. All consistent with a Grey / human
>hybrid.
>
>Hasn't the fact that an ET/human hybrid would almost certainly be a
>biological impossibility even entered your mind?
>
He may be thinking of "Star Trek" biology, in which a pig can mate
with a table leg and produce viable offspring.
ThePuppetMaster
John Baker <j...@spamfree.net> wrote in message
news:onnY7.27488$mu.10...@typhoon.neo.rr.com...
>
> "ThePuppetMaster" <tim...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:a0ghbi$uvl$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > The lack of knowledge displayed by debunkers is quite outstanding. It
gets
> > up my nose when they claim that there is no evidence to support the ET /
> > human hybridization program, when in fact there is ample.
> >
> > The best example of evidence to my knowledge is the 900 year old skull,
> > found in Mexico some seventy years ago. Even as a child the skull's
brain
> > capacity was some 200cc larger than a normal human adults. The eye
sockets
> > are much wider and shallower than you would expect to see in a human and
> the
> > neck attachment is much smaller. All consistent with a Grey / human
> hybrid.
>
> Hasn't the fact that an ET/human hybrid would almost certainly be a
> biological impossibility even entered your mind?
>
Please elaborate. It is possible to cross tigers and lions, so why not
humans and ETs?
http://www.sierrasafarizoo.com/animals/liger.htm
Dan Pressnell
> > Hasn't the fact that an ET/human hybrid would almost certainly be a
> > biological impossibility even entered your mind?
> >
>
> Please elaborate. It is possible to cross tigers and lions, so why not
> humans and ETs?
Get back with us after you've mated a fish with an elephant, okay?
How stupid....
Dan
ThePuppetMaster
Dan Pressnell <dan_pr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:OEnY7.127101$BX4.8...@e3500-atl1.usenetserver.com...
Nice attempt at evasion. Now could you explain why it would be impossible to
cross an ET with a human?
Thanks,
ThePuppetMaster
> How stupid....
>
> Dan
>
>
>
>
Knowledge is Freedom
wrote:
Because the greys bodies ARE ours. They use human fetuses to manufacture
their bodies. They CAN't hybridize what is already our DNA.
Michael Davis
Because creatures that evolved on another world would probably be far less
similar to us than an elephant and a fish are similar to each other. At least
all life on Earth is based on the same biochemistry. But there is no reason to
believe that alien life would use the same, or even remotely similar
biochemistry. There are an almost infinite number of combinations of chemicals
that can do the jobs of DNA, amino acids, enzymes, etc. Random chance would
almost certainly result in alien life evolving using completely different
chemicals. Such different chemistries would be completely incompatible and
hybridization would be impossible. Such things can only happen on Star Trek and
other such badly written science fiction.
--
The Evil Michael Davis™
Ruler For Life of AAR
http://mdavis19.tripod.com
http://skepticult.org Member #264-70198-536
Flaggy random killfile member #33 1/3
"Man's most valuable trait is a judicious sense of what not to believe." -
Euripides
Buckler
<tim...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Michael Davis <mdav...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>news:3C2C8E53...@ix.netcom.com...
>> The clueless kook calling itself ThePuppetMaster wrote:
>>
>> > Michael Davis <mdav...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>news:<3C2BE466...@ix.netcom.com>...
>> > > The clueless kook calling itself ThePuppetMaster wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > The lack of knowledge displayed by debunkers is quite outstanding.
>It gets
>> > > > up my nose when they claim that there is no evidence to support the
>ET /
>> > > > human hybridization program, when in fact there is ample.
>> > >
>> > > Actually, there is zero evidence that there have ever even been any
>aliens
>> > > visiting Earth, let alone carrying out any sort of X-Files type
>hybridization
>> > > nonsense.
>> >
>> > What rubbish.
>>
>> This starchild nonsense of yours is, yes.
>>
>
>Perhaps, perhaps not. How the hell do you know?
>
>> > There is lots of evidence.
>>
>> No there isn't.
>>
>
>Yes there is.
>
>> > Testimony is evidence,
>>
>> No it isn't, testimony is just stories, not evidence.
>>
>
>Perhaps you should explain that to the grand jury.Here's an example of them
>accepting testimony as evidence
>
>http://www.cnni.co.uk/ALLPOLITICS/1998/04/07/lewinsky.scandal/
>
>> > photographs are evidence,
>>
>> Not when they are useless for proving your claims they aren't. There are
>no photos available that
>> conclusively support the alien visitation myth.
>>
>
>Photographs ARE evidence. Photographs exist. Therefore evidence exists.
>Although you are correct to say that the evidence is not conclusive.
I think you and Michael are using two different standards of what
constitutes "evidence". The term as I believe Michael is using it is
something that any two independent researchers can study, and come to
similar conclusions about.
Your definition seems to be that photographs are evidence because
*something* was recorded on the emulsion, and therefore something must
have done it, although the results might be interpreted variously by
various people. (Either of you, please correct me if I'm mistaken).
The problem I have with your view is that photo-imaging and
manipulation techniques are becoming so sophisticated that it's
possible to generate a photo of something that has never existed, and
believably. I recall several years ago when National Geographic got
into hot water with it's readership because a staff artist
"Photoshopped" a cover image, moving one of the Great Pyramids to
better compose the cover shot.
Under Michael's POV as I understand it, this could be construed as
evidence that:
a) The pyramid had been physically moved (unlikely), or
b) some photographic trickery was involved (most likely).
Under the POV I gather from you, this photo would indicate that
a) The pyramid was moved physically, which is as likely as
b) There was image manipulation, which is as likely as
c) Aliens or other entities built a new pyramid specifically for the
photo, which is as likely as
d) The photo comes from an Alternate Earth, in which the pyramid is in
the position presented on the photo (ad infinitum...)
Am I wrong on this? I'm not out to bash anyone, but I'd like to have
some clarification on your views.
Dan Pressnell
Who evaded? You, talking about lions and tigers, or me, who replied on the
terms you set?
What a crybaby!
Dan
NewAge Skeptic
Photoshop or applications like it has made photograhic forgery
undetectable. OTOH, photographs can be produced fron scratch without
detection. I use Photoshop professionally and know how powerful it is.
At times when producing graphics I need to apply various distorting
filters just so they don't look like photographs if that is not the
effect I want.
A number of individuals have and do post photos of ghosts, UFOs, orbs
etc. and claim them to be the real deal. Here again Photoshop can be a
good detective. While at actual size and resolution flaws are not
detected by the eye, magnification up to 1600% will detect the
alteration if you know what you're looking for. Transparent layers, cut
and paste, paint or airbrush, filtering, sticks out like a sore thumb
when applied by amateurs who think they can fool the pros. Recently a
poster to this group threatened me with copyright violation action
because I had the audacity to examine her ghost and orb pictures in
Photoshop and identified the alterations.
There are ways in which alterations are totally undetectable even by the
best of pros. I won't discuss those methods here, other than to say it
is a painstaking process, because I don't want to encourage mischief.
Even individual frames of digicam footage can be altered and editing
noise removed.
Sorry for the lengthy explanation, but I've done so in order to make my
point. I do not accept photos as possible evidence unless I can also
examine the negative. Digital camera images I dismiss out of hand, as
well as digicam footage. Any photo posted on the web is digital and can
also be dismissed out of hand. So that just leaves the negatives :)
I agree with Michael. A photograph/image is only evidence of it being a
photograph/image. What is captured in the image is what needs to be
authenticated. Until that is done, by more than one expert working
independently, each having reached the same conclusion, there is no
evdence considering that evidence is a fact leading to proof.
Sorry to intrude :)
Knowledge is Freedom
Knowledge is Freedom
John Baker
>
> John Baker <j...@spamfree.net> wrote in message
> news:onnY7.27488$mu.10...@typhoon.neo.rr.com...
> >
> > "ThePuppetMaster" <tim...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:a0ghbi$uvl$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > > The lack of knowledge displayed by debunkers is quite outstanding. It
> gets
> > > up my nose when they claim that there is no evidence to support the ET
/
> > > human hybridization program, when in fact there is ample.
> > >
> > > The best example of evidence to my knowledge is the 900 year old
skull,
> > > found in Mexico some seventy years ago. Even as a child the skull's
> brain
> > > capacity was some 200cc larger than a normal human adults. The eye
> sockets
> > > are much wider and shallower than you would expect to see in a human
and
> > the
> > > neck attachment is much smaller. All consistent with a Grey / human
> > hybrid.
> >
> > Hasn't the fact that an ET/human hybrid would almost certainly be a
> > biological impossibility even entered your mind?
> >
>
> Please elaborate. It is possible to cross tigers and lions, so why not
> humans and ETs?
Oh, you poor pathetic dolt. If you don't know the answer to that question,
no wonder you believe in alien/human hybrids. Lions and tigers are *very*
closely related. They're both members of the same genus, Panthera. (Panthera
leo and P. tigris respectively) There's less than 1% difference in their
DNA. Even so, the difference is great enough that lion/tiger hybrids (called
ligers or tigons, depending on whether a lion or tiger was the sire) are
sterile, and the only way to produce more ligers or tigons is to crossbreed
lions and tigers. This is done by artificial insemination, BTW, since the
two won't crossbreed of their own accord. Humans are separated by less than
3% from our closest relatives, the great apes, (gorillas, chimps, bonobos),
yet, assertions of cryptozoology woo-woos not withstanding, humans and apes
cannot crossbreed at all. Nor, for that matter, can gorillas and
chimpanzees, chimps and bonobos, or gorillas and bonobos. The genetic
variation, although less than 2 or 3%, is too great. If species as closely
related as humans and apes can't interbreed, it's a very near absolute
certainty that human/ET crossbreeding will never occur outside the realm of
science fiction. Please, for your own sake if nothing else, learn a little
bit about the biological sciences before you come presenting biological
impossibilites as fact.
John Baker
"Knowledge is Freedom" <fr...@free.free> wrote in message
news:3c320d94...@news.erols.com...
First, demostrate that "greys" actually exist. Then, demonstrate that your
claims are fact. Good luck. Jeezus H. Christ in a sidecar, there are more
nut cases on Usenet than in all the mental institutions in the world
combined.
Dan Pressnell
"Knowledge is Freedom" <fr...@free.free> wrote in message
> On Tue, 1 Jan 2002 15:26:57 -0500, "Dan Pressnell"
<dan_pr...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> Ever wonder why the greys look just like human fetuses?
No, I've never wondered that.
> Wonder no more. They made themselves in *our* image by culling human
> fetuses in order to manufacture their bodies.
Now that you mention it, if a grey embryo looks like a human embryo, then
that means a grey embryo looks like a chicken embryo, right? Does this mean
they made themselves in the image of a chicken?
We are getting some very bright people here today, aren't we?
Dan
Dan Pressnell
> > > Hasn't the fact that an ET/human hybrid would almost certainly be a
> > > biological impossibility even entered your mind?
> > >
> >
> > Please elaborate. It is possible to cross tigers and lions, so why not
> > humans and ETs?
>
> Oh, you poor pathetic dolt. If you don't know the answer to that question,
> no wonder you believe in alien/human hybrids. Lions and tigers are *very*
> closely related. They're both members of the same genus, Panthera.
(Panthera
> leo and P. tigris respectively) There's less than 1% difference in their
> DNA. Even so, the difference is great enough that lion/tiger hybrids
(called
> ligers or tigons, depending on whether a lion or tiger was the sire) are
> sterile, and the only way to produce more ligers or tigons is to
crossbreed
> lions and tigers. This is done by artificial insemination, BTW, since the
> two won't crossbreed of their own accord. Humans are separated by less
than
> 3% from our closest relatives, the great apes, (gorillas, chimps,
bonobos),
> yet, assertions of cryptozoology woo-woos not withstanding, humans and
apes
> cannot crossbreed at all. Nor, for that matter, can gorillas and
> chimpanzees, chimps and bonobos, or gorillas and bonobos.
He doesn't want to hear about chimps, monkeys, fish, elephants, giraffs,
snakes, or frogs. He just wants to talk about lions and tigers. All other
examples are "evasion" according to him.
Dan
Knowledge is Freedom
wrote:
>
>"Knowledge is Freedom" <fr...@free.free> wrote in message
>news:3c393489...@news.erols.com...
>> On Tue, 1 Jan 2002 15:26:57 -0500, "Dan Pressnell"
><dan_pr...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> Ever wonder why the greys look just like human fetuses?
>
>No, I've never wondered that.
>
>> Wonder no more. They made themselves in *our* image by culling human
>> fetuses in order to manufacture their bodies.
>
>Now that you mention it, if a grey embryo looks like a human embryo, then
>that means a grey embryo looks like a chicken embryo, right? Does this mean
>they made themselves in the image of a chicken?
>
>We are getting some very bright people here today, aren't we?
There are no grey embryos. They don't reproduct. They have no sex organs.
Where do you think they get their bodies?
>
>Dan
>
>
>
>
Knowledge is Freedom
wrote:
I'll answer that! They use nanotech on human fetuses -- they alter them --
by rewriting some of the DNA.
>
>>
>>Dan
>>
>>
>>
>>
John Baker
Yeah, I was afraid of that. These woo-woos don't want truth, they want
validation. Show them the facts, and they close their eyes, stick their
fingers in their ears, and shout "I can't hear you" at the top of their
lungs. Sad.
>
>
>