Comments on: Debunking roundup

By: Mori

Mori — Fri, 20 Apr 2012 03:46:03 +0000

Your justification makes belief the only possible conclusion: if it doesn’t seem faked to you, then it’s not faked — or it could only be faked by a “very advanced Photoshop expert”; if on the other hand it seems obviously faked, then it’s not faked — otherwise why would someone promote such poor hoaxes?

Granted, you could argue that I just as well can only conclude everything is hoaxed. We may both be wrong.

But then, the skeptical position by principle is certainly better grounded than yours, if only by suspending judgement.

By: Inmado

Inmado — Thu, 19 Apr 2012 16:40:12 +0000

People, please dont believe everything here on this site. Ofcourse its good to be sceptical. But the information you have got about the mudman? Man, dont make me laugh. You’ve got this from ‘Stichting Skepsis’. This is just a group who dont want to know the truth. Bashing everything. Not even think about the possibility that there is more then that we see. I believe this Mudman photo is just created by Skepsis itself. This group deliberitly broke this guy down.
Because he became very very powerfull on the Dutch televisionshows. I mean powerfull in a good way. Ofcourse this group didnt want this to happen, because i believe they are controlled by the government (Illuminati).

And also about the photo’s with the same ufo’s as Billy Meier. If there are UFO’s it is possible that the same UFO apeared on Van Den Broeke’s photo’s.
I am a film / camera and Photoshop expert and I CANT find anything suspicious on the rest of his photo’s.
You have to be a very very advanced Photoshop Expert to fake this. Except ofcourse the Mudman photo. Now why would this advanced Photoshop expert suddenly make a mistake on the Mudman photo like it is photoshopped by a child?!! Think about that!!!

By: Jacques Vallée: Magonians create crop circles | forgetomori

Jacques Vallée: Magonians create crop circles | forgetomori — Thu, 08 Jul 2010 21:01:40 +0000

[...] objections to the purported evidence. Patrick Gross already did that. Also, I have already written a debunking roundup which included discussion on what BLT is still promoting. I assume Talbott sincerely believes these [...]

By: Mori

Mori — Sat, 22 May 2010 04:02:27 +0000

Wow, great tip! Many thanks, I’ll write about it soon!

By: Tony Hawkins

Tony Hawkins — Fri, 21 May 2010 21:33:06 +0000

I’m very new to this website so I don’t know who I’m addressing. I am not a strong fan of debunkers or debunkees (?) but at least you have a sense of humour, which I find hopeful. It does seem the arguments follow set channels which do not seem imaginative enough in relation to unknown absolute reality (probably unknowable but even what might be known must be way beyond current thinking.) So, we have a phenomenon, hoaxing, which is itself a break in reality.
I rather suspect a lot of very real information could be gleaned from this if we could find imaginative ways to study it. I’m not sure how far to go in talking about this to unknown people. So I’ll stop with if more than four dimensions are necessary to account for the quantum world, then they are be present at the macro level in some way. Isn’t it possible that hoaxing, like dreaming, is both influenced by past day events and makes preparation for coming events, sometimes with startling perspicacity, as though there was an intelligence at work outside the parameters of the day mind? So the total hoaxing world, (which could include all culture as a form of ‘deception’) itself might be a form of dreaming and there might be contiguous events showing something which no-one had been looking for.

I can’t be more specific although I’ve had the odd experience which has left me feeling like I’m hanging over the edge of an invisible cliff. I feel we’re all being a bit like pre-Freudian dream collectors who haven’t yet twigged how astonishingly intelligent dreams can be even as they are apparently delivering what the conscious mind considers to be nonsense.

I know there’s a germ of something here but I’m sorry I can’t be more helpful, or more coherent.

Tony