Friday, October 28, 2011
JREF Thread: "UFOs? Bigfoot? Is it 1975 in here?"
Did you know there was a "Woo-Infrastructure?" I know, either did I! But there is. And what's more, they/we think it's still 1975, because stories about Bigfoot and UFOs are still going strong. This is news that both "amazes and saddens"as the OP commented. Read the whole thread here: UFOs? Bigfoot? Is it 1975 in here? - JREF Forum Which by the way, makes about the 400th thread about Bigfoot over there. I lost count long ago, but as you'll see, skeptics can't stay away from Bigfoot!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Hi Regan,
I popped over to James Randi's site (had not been there in a while) and I was tempted to join in order to ask a few questions about the 'woo infrastructure, but I'll ask the questions here first.
I like the fact that there are organized individuals who demand hard evidence of the claims of the paranormal. It's the only way to get to the truth, I think.
But it tends to lump things like solid witness accounts into the 'woo' catagory wrongly.
Firstly, how can we ignore or marginalize the work of John Mack?
He was a highly regarded, Harvard trained Psychologist. He (and others like Budd Hopkins and J. Vallee) established enough data to support the existence of an alien agenda to convince a great number of us, in spite of the lack of a White House lawn landing.
Similarly, we have the large number of BF/Sasquatch witness reports from trained observers and naturalists like Policemen, Forest workers, and reluctant hikers that cannot be ignored.
The people posting on the JREF forum don't bother to cite hallucinations or mass hypnosis as the reasons for these multiple accounts, relying instead on making up words to belittle the people who, arguably did not really wish to see what they saw in the first place.
To sum up, I still believe it's good to have a system that can put 'feet to the fire' as it were in regard to claims that strain credulity, but at some point, there must be acknowledgment of the claims that just won't fit in the dustbin of 'woo'.
Post a Comment